Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2019, 04:47:42 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: NYGurl, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
  AOC's latest gaffe shows just how expensive Medicare for all would be
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: AOC's latest gaffe shows just how expensive Medicare for all would be  (Read 2052 times)
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 08, 2018, 06:01:58 am »

link - Vox
Quote
The US military budget is such a bloated monstrosity that it contains accounting errors that could finance two-thirds of the cost of a government-run single-payer health insurance system. All Americans could visit an unlimited array of doctors at no out of pocket cost. At least thatís a notion spreading on left-wing Twitter and endorsed and amplified by newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of Democratsí biggest 2018 sensations and an undeniable master at the fine art of staying in the public eye.

Unfortunately, itís not true. The idea spread like a game of telephone from a Nation article to the US Congress while losing a crucial point of detail: The Pentagonís accounting errors are genuinely enormous, but theyíre also just accounting errors ó they donít represent actual money that can be spent on something else.

<snip>

That said, at a certain point you canít just talk about how itís possible to finance the program you favor. You need instead to write down a specific financing mechanism ó including the possibility of financing it with debt ó and then get the votes in Congress to pass that specific bill rather than some other one.

Forty months ago when Sandersís presidential campaign was more of a curiosity than an influential political movement, vagueness on this point was harmless. The name of the game was to build political support for an idea that currently had little support and sort the details out later.

Whatís striking, however, is that essentially no progress has been made on sorting out the details. Thatís why you have one of the countryís highest-profile Medicare-for-all proponents tweeting misinformation about potential pay-fors: She doesnít have a specific canonical proposal she can point to as reflecting what sheís working toward.

<snip>
The entire budget of the US military throughout it's history isn't $21T.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,433
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2018, 07:11:09 am »

link - Vox
Quote
The US military budget is such a bloated monstrosity that it contains accounting errors that could finance two-thirds of the cost of a government-run single-payer health insurance system. All Americans could visit an unlimited array of doctors at no out of pocket cost. At least thatís a notion spreading on left-wing Twitter and endorsed and amplified by newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of Democratsí biggest 2018 sensations and an undeniable master at the fine art of staying in the public eye.

Unfortunately, itís not true. The idea spread like a game of telephone from a Nation article to the US Congress while losing a crucial point of detail: The Pentagonís accounting errors are genuinely enormous, but theyíre also just accounting errors ó they donít represent actual money that can be spent on something else.

<snip>

That said, at a certain point you canít just talk about how itís possible to finance the program you favor. You need instead to write down a specific financing mechanism ó including the possibility of financing it with debt ó and then get the votes in Congress to pass that specific bill rather than some other one.

Forty months ago when Sandersís presidential campaign was more of a curiosity than an influential political movement, vagueness on this point was harmless. The name of the game was to build political support for an idea that currently had little support and sort the details out later.

Whatís striking, however, is that essentially no progress has been made on sorting out the details. Thatís why you have one of the countryís highest-profile Medicare-for-all proponents tweeting misinformation about potential pay-fors: She doesnít have a specific canonical proposal she can point to as reflecting what sheís working toward.

<snip>
The entire budget of the US military throughout it's history isn't $21T.

And yet current healthcare spending is expected to be double that with millions of uninsured people, massive high premium causing bankruptcy, huge cost on small business & and many thousands dying because of a lack of affordability.

People have to be radical fringe extremists to oppose the idea!
Logged
○∙◄☻•tπ[╪AV┼cVÍ└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,569


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2018, 07:12:41 am »

We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world, so obviously we can't afford to have some other healthcare system.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2018, 07:17:58 am »

You guys should pass your ideas on to the people that can't come up with any then.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,425
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2018, 07:52:04 am »

I'm no fan of AOC.
That said, conservatives' obsession with her (especially when they turn a blind eye to the constant stream of BS flowing from the White House) is deeply disturbing and ought to be studied by psychiatrists.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,602
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2018, 08:12:22 am »


Yeah. 21T is what will probably be spent on HC in the next
So, would I want to spend 250 a month on insurance that I'll have to change each time I get a new job or 350 a month on taxes that goes with me and which I only pay when I'm not laid off? I mean, it's a good question. Right now, I'd be ok with expanding Obamacare to what it was when it was originally proposed or how Pelosi passed it. I get it. Too many people are dependent on the status quo to immediately nationalize a sixth of the economy. That girl I almost married almost voted for Romney over Obamacare because she was into hospital revenue.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,602
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2018, 08:24:01 am »

I'm no fan of AOC.
That said, conservatives' obsession with her (especially when they turn a blind eye to the constant stream of BS flowing from the White House) is deeply disturbing and ought to be studied by psychiatrists.

Cortez Derangement Syndrome
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2018, 08:26:39 am »

I'm no fan of AOC.
That said, conservatives' obsession with her (especially when they turn a blind eye to the constant stream of BS flowing from the White House) is deeply disturbing and ought to be studied by psychiatrists.

Cortez Derangement Syndrome
I've said at least 40 bad things about Trump for every bad thing I've said about AOC.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,694
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2018, 10:33:40 am »


Yeah. 21T is what will probably be spent on HC in the next
So, would I want to spend 250 a month on insurance that I'll have to change each time I get a new job or 350 a month on taxes that goes with me and which I only pay when I'm not laid off? I mean, it's a good question. Right now, I'd be ok with expanding Obamacare to what it was when it was originally proposed or how Pelosi passed it. I get it. Too many people are dependent on the status quo to immediately nationalize a sixth of the economy. That girl I almost married almost voted for Romney over Obamacare because she was into hospital revenue.

Cute.  You really have no idea how expensive insurance is without subsidies from the tax system or employers or directly from the government, especially when you get old.  Here's a hint. IT"S DAMN EXPENSIVE!!!!  I'm a 50-55 year old non-smoker who gets his insurance from the Marketplace.  Pre-subsidy it's around $900/month. Thankfully, the subsidy cuts that down considerably, but it's still a pain.
Logged
Representative Carpetbagger
CELTICEMPIRE
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2018, 10:37:25 am »

I'm no fan of AOC.
That said, conservatives' obsession with her (especially when they turn a blind eye to the constant stream of BS flowing from the White House) is deeply disturbing and ought to be studied by psychiatrists.

Cortez Derangement Syndrome
I've said at least 40 bad things about Trump for every bad thing I've said about AOC.
I wish I had a dollar for every time an Atlas leftist used "but Trump!" as a response to criticism of a Democratic candidate.
Logged
Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,117
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2018, 11:54:17 am »


Yeah. 21T is what will probably be spent on HC in the next
So, would I want to spend 250 a month on insurance that I'll have to change each time I get a new job or 350 a month on taxes that goes with me and which I only pay when I'm not laid off? I mean, it's a good question. Right now, I'd be ok with expanding Obamacare to what it was when it was originally proposed or how Pelosi passed it. I get it. Too many people are dependent on the status quo to immediately nationalize a sixth of the economy. That girl I almost married almost voted for Romney over Obamacare because she was into hospital revenue.

Cute.  You really have no idea how expensive insurance is without subsidies from the tax system or employers or directly from the government, especially when you get old.  Here's a hint. IT"S DAMN EXPENSIVE!!!!  I'm a 50-55 year old non-smoker who gets his insurance from the Marketplace.  Pre-subsidy it's around $900/month. Thankfully, the subsidy cuts that down considerably, but it's still a pain.
You arenít paying anywhere near $900 and in a single payer system youíd still probably pay less than you do now.  Healthy wealthy Ralphy might pay quite a bit more...but thatís a feature, not a flaw.

Angry_weasel knows what heís talking about.  Youíre just marveling at big trees with no concept of the forest youíre lost in.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,694
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2018, 02:44:22 pm »


Yeah. 21T is what will probably be spent on HC in the next
So, would I want to spend 250 a month on insurance that I'll have to change each time I get a new job or 350 a month on taxes that goes with me and which I only pay when I'm not laid off? I mean, it's a good question. Right now, I'd be ok with expanding Obamacare to what it was when it was originally proposed or how Pelosi passed it. I get it. Too many people are dependent on the status quo to immediately nationalize a sixth of the economy. That girl I almost married almost voted for Romney over Obamacare because she was into hospital revenue.

Cute.  You really have no idea how expensive insurance is without subsidies from the tax system or employers or directly from the government, especially when you get old.  Here's a hint. IT"S DAMN EXPENSIVE!!!!  I'm a 50-55 year old non-smoker who gets his insurance from the Marketplace.  Pre-subsidy it's around $900/month. Thankfully, the subsidy cuts that down considerably, but it's still a pain.
You arenít paying anywhere near $900 and in a single payer system youíd still probably pay less than you do now.  Healthy wealthy Ralphy might pay quite a bit more...but thatís a feature, not a flaw.

Angry_weasel knows what heís talking about.  Youíre just marveling at big trees with no concept of the forest youíre lost in.

I'll grant that single payer will reduce costs, but if you think it'll cut two-thirds of the cost, you're living in fantasyland. By one-third is possible, but going beyond that is going to lead to considerable impacts on quality and availability of care.  Already with some specialties, if you're on Medicaid, you're screwed. You may have to wait months if there's even a specialist available. Squeeze the turnip too much and there will be no more blood as health care providers leave the system to do other things that pay more.  Moreover, even if we were to get health care down to the fantasy one-third level, we're still talking an average of $800 per worker per month in costs.
Logged
UncleSam
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,283
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2018, 03:07:55 pm »


Yeah. 21T is what will probably be spent on HC in the next
So, would I want to spend 250 a month on insurance that I'll have to change each time I get a new job or 350 a month on taxes that goes with me and which I only pay when I'm not laid off? I mean, it's a good question. Right now, I'd be ok with expanding Obamacare to what it was when it was originally proposed or how Pelosi passed it. I get it. Too many people are dependent on the status quo to immediately nationalize a sixth of the economy. That girl I almost married almost voted for Romney over Obamacare because she was into hospital revenue.

Cute.  You really have no idea how expensive insurance is without subsidies from the tax system or employers or directly from the government, especially when you get old.  Here's a hint. IT"S DAMN EXPENSIVE!!!!  I'm a 50-55 year old non-smoker who gets his insurance from the Marketplace.  Pre-subsidy it's around $900/month. Thankfully, the subsidy cuts that down considerably, but it's still a pain.
You arenít paying anywhere near $900 and in a single payer system youíd still probably pay less than you do now.  Healthy wealthy Ralphy might pay quite a bit more...but thatís a feature, not a flaw.

Angry_weasel knows what heís talking about.  Youíre just marveling at big trees with no concept of the forest youíre lost in.

I'll grant that single payer will reduce costs, but if you think it'll cut two-thirds of the cost, you're living in fantasyland. By one-third is possible, but going beyond that is going to lead to considerable impacts on quality and availability of care.  Already with some specialties, if you're on Medicaid, you're screwed. You may have to wait months if there's even a specialist available. Squeeze the turnip too much and there will be no more blood as health care providers leave the system to do other things that pay more.  Moreover, even if we were to get health care down to the fantasy one-third level, we're still talking an average of $800 per worker per month in costs.
This is true, but even beyond this single payer itself wonít be doing the cost regulation - the government will.

Regulation in most industries makes it more difficult to start and run a business. This is generally a bad thing. However, when it comes to medical costs, people truly have no clue what they are paying for or how much, and are in a much worse position to make smart purchasing decisions.

If we could set a Medicare fee schedule for all services in the United States, we wouldnít need to destroy the free market for insurance to regulate costs - costs would come down all on their own. If we were to institute TORT reform and lower the legal risks associated with performing risky procedures at the patientsí behest, operating costs for hospitals would go down and doctor wages would go up. Same with providing tax breaks to hospitals.

The problem is that hospitals need to be able to make money or else there is no reason for them to exist. If you address the issues hospitals and doctors are facing while simultaneously limiting costs through regulation, you would see a fairer system wherein hospitals can more easily make a stable profit year to year and consumers (including health insurance providers) would be on the hook for significantly lowered costs. Via the Obamacare market, those lowered costs would translate almost directly into peopleís pockets.

In other words, there absolutely is a way to fix the healthcare system in this country through the mechanisms provided by Obamacare. The main losers of such a fix would be ambulance-chasing lawyers and other bloodsuckers at the fringes of the healthcare industry who profit off of the wide variance of outcomes and massive costs that people are willing to pay when it comes to their own health (or are willing to award when it comes to malpractice suits).

A friend of mineís father is a pediatric neurosurgeon at a prestigious hospital and makes upwards of 500k per year. The reason he makes this much (outside of how skilled he is) is that he pays upwards of 100k per year in doctorís insurance to protect from malpractice suits, despite never once having to defend against such a suit in his 15+ years working. This is the impact that medical malpractice lawsuit payments have on the industry: doctors need to be paid exorbitant amounts for their services because the financial risks involved with executing their profession are so insanely high. I know that he for one would happily take a 150k pay cut if he had to stop paying for insurance to cover merely the possibility of a multimillion dollar lawsuit against him in the event that one time a risky procedure is a failure.

Now obviously our malpractice laws are in place to provide incentives to doctors to do good work, since when they do bad work it irretrievably damages the lives of others (or even kills others). However, I would suggest that, as in most cases, massive negative consequences have less effectiveness than marginal negative consequences combined with positive incentives to do a good job - I highly doubt there are a significant number of doctors out there who would do things differently if the malpractice lawsuits were 10% of what they currently are.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,602
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2018, 03:56:29 pm »


Yeah. 21T is what will probably be spent on HC in the next
So, would I want to spend 250 a month on insurance that I'll have to change each time I get a new job or 350 a month on taxes that goes with me and which I only pay when I'm not laid off? I mean, it's a good question. Right now, I'd be ok with expanding Obamacare to what it was when it was originally proposed or how Pelosi passed it. I get it. Too many people are dependent on the status quo to immediately nationalize a sixth of the economy. That girl I almost married almost voted for Romney over Obamacare because she was into hospital revenue.

Cute.  You really have no idea how expensive insurance is without subsidies from the tax system or employers or directly from the government, especially when you get old.  Here's a hint. IT"S DAMN EXPENSIVE!!!!  I'm a 50-55 year old non-smoker who gets his insurance from the Marketplace.  Pre-subsidy it's around $900/month. Thankfully, the subsidy cuts that down considerably, but it's still a pain.
You arenít paying anywhere near $900 and in a single payer system youíd still probably pay less than you do now.  Healthy wealthy Ralphy might pay quite a bit more...but thatís a feature, not a flaw.

Angry_weasel knows what heís talking about.  Youíre just marveling at big trees with no concept of the forest youíre lost in.

I'll grant that single payer will reduce costs, but if you think it'll cut two-thirds of the cost, you're living in fantasyland. By one-third is possible, but going beyond that is going to lead to considerable impacts on quality and availability of care.  Already with some specialties, if you're on Medicaid, you're screwed. You may have to wait months if there's even a specialist available. Squeeze the turnip too much and there will be no more blood as health care providers leave the system to do other things that pay more.  Moreover, even if we were to get health care down to the fantasy one-third level, we're still talking an average of $800 per worker per month in costs.
This is true, but even beyond this single payer itself wonít be doing the cost regulation - the government will.

Regulation in most industries makes it more difficult to start and run a business. This is generally a bad thing. However, when it comes to medical costs, people truly have no clue what they are paying for or how much, and are in a much worse position to make smart purchasing decisions.

If we could set a Medicare fee schedule for all services in the United States, we wouldnít need to destroy the free market for insurance to regulate costs - costs would come down all on their own. If we were to institute TORT reform and lower the legal risks associated with performing risky procedures at the patientsí behest, operating costs for hospitals would go down and doctor wages would go up. Same with providing tax breaks to hospitals.

The problem is that hospitals need to be able to make money or else there is no reason for them to exist. If you address the issues hospitals and doctors are facing while simultaneously limiting costs through regulation, you would see a fairer system wherein hospitals can more easily make a stable profit year to year and consumers (including health insurance providers) would be on the hook for significantly lowered costs. Via the Obamacare market, those lowered costs would translate almost directly into peopleís pockets.

In other words, there absolutely is a way to fix the healthcare system in this country through the mechanisms provided by Obamacare. The main losers of such a fix would be ambulance-chasing lawyers and other bloodsuckers at the fringes of the healthcare industry who profit off of the wide variance of outcomes and massive costs that people are willing to pay when it comes to their own health (or are willing to award when it comes to malpractice suits).

A friend of mineís father is a pediatric neurosurgeon at a prestigious hospital and makes upwards of 500k per year. The reason he makes this much (outside of how skilled he is) is that he pays upwards of 100k per year in doctorís insurance to protect from malpractice suits, despite never once having to defend against such a suit in his 15+ years working. This is the impact that medical malpractice lawsuit payments have on the industry: doctors need to be paid exorbitant amounts for their services because the financial risks involved with executing their profession are so insanely high. I know that he for one would happily take a 150k pay cut if he had to stop paying for insurance to cover merely the possibility of a multimillion dollar lawsuit against him in the event that one time a risky procedure is a failure.

Now obviously our malpractice laws are in place to provide incentives to doctors to do good work, since when they do bad work it irretrievably damages the lives of others (or even kills others). However, I would suggest that, as in most cases, massive negative consequences have less effectiveness than marginal negative consequences combined with positive incentives to do a good job - I highly doubt there are a significant number of doctors out there who would do things differently if the malpractice lawsuits were 10% of what they currently are.

That's just health care rationing with extra steps. Just like with implementing high deductible plans, this would just keep people from going to the doctor.
Logged
NHI
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,770



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2018, 04:09:22 pm »

I'm no fan of AOC.
That said, conservatives' obsession with her (especially when they turn a blind eye to the constant stream of BS flowing from the White House) is deeply disturbing and ought to be studied by psychiatrists.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,443


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2018, 04:14:39 pm »

I'm no fan of AOC.
That said, conservatives' obsession with her (especially when they turn a blind eye to the constant stream of BS flowing from the White House) is deeply disturbing and ought to be studied by psychiatrists.

Lol it doesn't take a professional to see that conservatives' focus on liberal women like Pelosi and AOC is because they are deeply misogynist.
Logged
SirWoodbury
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 955


Political Matrix
E: 1.48, S: 1.30

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2018, 04:18:45 pm »

Soon she will call for the government to seize the means of production. Are these the type of people we want in congress?
Logged
Republican BRTD
NYC Millennial Minority
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 901
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.77, S: 7.77

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2018, 05:11:46 pm »

man I hope the AOC Dems become so prominent that we easily take back the House in 2020. That would be great for this country.
Logged
GP270watch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 737


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2018, 05:18:35 pm »

The United States could easily have single payer. It's just a matter of priorities, if the United Kingdom and Canada have it, saying we can't afford it is a lie.

Logged
Arch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,126
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2018, 05:31:41 pm »

The United States could easily have single payer. It's just a matter of priorities, if the United Kingdom and Canada have it, saying we can't afford it is a lie.


Logged
Santander
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,333
Taiwan


Political Matrix
E: 3.54, S: 4.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2018, 05:51:16 pm »

lol dull0man
Logged
GP270watch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 737


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2018, 06:01:50 pm »

 Also tort-reform is a tired conservative talking point that has been analyzed to death. It isn't a significant contributor to healthcare costs. Furthermore the rise in premiums for Doctors and Surgeons did not come from large awards given to "Ambulance Chasers" but rather from unchecked consolidation by large insurance firms like AIG who cornered this market and immediately raised premiums to make record profits, all while pushing tort reform legislation at the state level that hurts patients and the ability to seek appropriate civil justice.

Logged
VirginiŠ
Virginia C
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,106
Ukraine


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2018, 06:07:18 pm »

Soon she will call for the government to seize the means of production. Are these the type of people we want in congress?

https://hornet.com/stories/7-batsh**t-craziest-statements-texas-rep-louie-gohmert/

Quote
”I had this discussion with some wonderful, caring Democrats earlier this week on the issue of, well, they said ‘Surely you could agree to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, couldn’t you? How would that be problematic?’…

And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why would you draw the line at ten? What’s wrong with nine? Or eleven? And the problem is once you draw that limit ; it’s kind of like marriage when you say it’s not a man and a woman any more, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal?

Quote
“I’ve had people say, ‘Hey, you know, there’s nothing wrong with gays in the military. Look at the Greeks.’ Well, you know, they did have people come along who they loved that was the same sex and would give them massages before they went into battle. But you know what, it’s a different kind of fighting, it’s a different kind of war and if you’re sitting around getting massages all day ready to go into a big, planned battle, then you’re not going to last very long.”

Quote
"So when [caribou] want to go on a date, they invite each other to head over to the pipeline. ... So my real concern now [is] if oil stops running through the pipeline ... do we need a study to see how adversely the caribou would be affected if that warm oil ever quit flowing?"


Why stop at Congress? Plenty of crazy further down too:

Quote


And if we're talking about fitness for Congress, it makes sense to address the presidency too, but that would require several new threads for the 2 years worth of insane statements/actions of Donald J. Trump.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,821


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2018, 12:13:55 am »

It's always fun when people here betray their youth and naivete, demonstrating that they've never had to actually buy or pay for their own health insurance in their lives and have probably never had a medical expense of any consequence before.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,450
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2018, 12:55:27 am »

Dead0man's latest thread shows just how bad Atlas Forum actually is
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC