Single payer: Too good to be true. Is that the problem?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Back in 2013, we discussed H.R. 676, Medicare for All.

Its stated purpose: “To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, improved health care delivery, and for other purposes. No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.”

All your medical bills — your doctors, your hospital, your drugs, inpatient, outpatient, even long-term care — all would be paid. You wouldn’t have to worry about Medicare supplement insurance, Medicaid coverage, shopping for and paying for any sort of health insurance.

No parents would have to pay for sick children. No children would have to pay for sick parents. No one would be uninsured.

Is it too good to be true, one gigantic worry, one gigantic burden, off your back? Who could possibly not love that?

Well, as it turns out, lots of people.

First, there is the health insurance industry. You know them, the hard to reach folks you have to beg to cover your hospital stay, your expensive drugs, your outpatient nursing care.

These are the people who charge you and your boss excessive premiums, offer confusing arrays of plans — gold, silver, bronze, cardboard — with deductibles and exceptions and non-coverages, and whose profits depend on them denying, denying, denying.

Quick now, tell me exactly what your expensive health insurance covers and doesn’t cover. You don’t know? Not everything? Why not?

And don’t even get me started on those uber-expensive long-term care plans, with their complex, convoluted requirements that you absolutely, positively do not understand, and the limits that kick in just when you need help most.

Second, there are the very rich, those people who don’t need health insurance because, let’s face it, when you have a few hundred million dollars, you can pay for any medical problem. You don’t need insurance.

The rich don’t want you to have good health care because that would narrow the Gap between them and you.

If there were no Gap, no one would be rich and no one would be poor, and the wider the Gap, the richer are the rich and the poorer are the poor.

Third, there are the politicians, media and university economists, who are paid by the rich to tell you why your receiving of free medical care is bad for you and bad for the country.

Bernie Sanders’ Health Care Plan Proves That U.S. Single-Payer is an Expensive Fantasy
It’s too disruptive and too expensive. Peter Suderman |Jan. 19, 2016 1:13 pm

On Sunday night, shortly before the Democratic primary debate, Sanders released his plan, dubbing it, Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind.

The Sanders plan would require $1.38 trillion—trillion! with a T!—in additional federal spending every single year.

The tax hikes required to pay for this much new spending would be enormous, and while the Sanders plan does its best to place most of the burden on high earners through a slew of income tax hikes, he also adds new taxes on employers and an additional 2.2 percent flat tax on virtually all income beyond the standard deduction.

The author of the article is Peter Suderman. We’ve spoken of him before. He’s a reliable mouthpiece for the rich. He greets any proposed benefits for the middle class with contempt (He calls them “welfare state,” and “entitlement state”).

Suderman is completely clueless (or pretends to be clueless) about Monetary Sovereignty.

To Suderman, federal spending is unaffordable and unsustainable and just plain bad, while personal spending is fine, because in Suderman-world, the federal government is broke while you and I can afford anything.

Here is what Bernie Sanders says about the costs of Medicare for All:

“The United States currently spends $3 trillion on health care each year—nearly $10,000 per person. Reforming our health care system, simplifying our payment structure and incentivizing new ways to make sure patients are actually getting better health care will generate massive savings.

“This plan has been estimated to save the American people and businesses over $6 trillion over the next decade.

“Bernie’s plan will cost over $6 trillion less than the current health care system over the next ten years. The United States currently spends $3 trillion on health care each year—nearly $10,000 per person.

“Reforming our health care system, simplifying our payment structure and incentivizing new ways to make sure patients are actually getting better health care will generate massive savings.

“This plan has been estimated to save the American people and businesses over $6 trillion over the next decade. The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan”

The real problem is that the American public has been so brainwashed with the false notion that federal deficits are unaffordable, unsustainable and downright awful, that no politician can tell the truth and expect to be elected.

Sanders has given us a hint about what he will do after being elected, however. He has hired Stephanie Kelton to be his chief economist.

Kelton is extremely knowledgeable about Monetary Sovereignty. She knows the federal government cannot run short of dollars; she knows federal deficits are necessary for economic growth.

Bernie wouldn’t have hired Stephanie unless he plans to educate the public about the facts.

Getting back to Suderman’s article:

Sanders’ defense also reveals another problem beyond his savings: The way he would get rid of private health insurance premiums would be to get rid of private health insurance.

The problem is that most people like their current health plans and doctors. Disruption is the essential element of a single-payer overhaul.

This “Sudermanism” either is extremely stupid or a cunning lie. Saying that most people like paying for their current health care plans is like saying that most people like paying off their three-year-old car — and so would not like to receive abigger, better newer, model, absolutely free.

And notice that little insert of the words “and doctors.” There is nothing in ‘Medicare for All” that says you will give up your doctors. In fact, the opposite is true.

But the well-paid Suderman’s of the world, try to disseminate the Big Lie that you will lose your doctors. Medicare pays doctors. “Medicare for All” would pay doctors. No one would give up anything.

But the issue goes well beyond dollars. Most importantly, it’s a human issue:

CEO of $200 million/Year Biz: Single Payer is Good For Business

Richard Master CEO of MCS Industries, Inc.: I was out of the country. My son was introducing us to future in-laws in Chile. He developed an allergic reaction he bought an inhalator for $15 that would cost $150 in the US. At the same time, my company was going through negotiations regarding insurance increases.

Question: What were the most shocking, surprising things you learned?

Master: In almost every rock you turn over in this investigation is another outrage. We do not negotiate for pharmaceutical drugs in this country. As a result, we pay 40-50% more in this country than any other country in the world. Healthcare is eating the economy alive. It is 10-15% of local school district budget.

Question: MCS pays $1.5 million for health insurance. How would that change under single payer? Would it save your company money?

Master: Yes, about 20%.

Actually, Medicare for All, fully funded by the federal government, would save his company 100%.

Question: Are there other ways that single payer help your company.

Master: It’s also an argument for prevention. When people have to pay a “deductible” most families don’t have two or four five thousand dollars for deductible. So, from a preventative care, this would be transformative.

It’s against the law to discriminate against older employees. But employers and HR professionals looking to moderate their costs are inclined to prefer younger employees, because insurance companies even under the affordable care act can charge three times as much for older employees than younger ones.

Question: How would single payer help American companies in terms of international competition?

Master: If you look at the total medical bill in terms of gross domestic product it’s at 18%. That’s about twice the foreign companies. We’re not competitive as a society.

We have a Canadian company CEO– a conservative– who said it is a non-starter to open in the United states. I can’t do it because it would cost me an additional million dollars.

Question: So there are whole industries that can’t do business in the US because they can’t compete with foreign companies that do not have to worry about health care costs?

Chuck Pennacchio, Associate Professor of History and Politics, University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Executive Director of Healthcare for All Pennsylvania, Associate Producer of “Fix It: Healthcare at the Tipping Point”:

We did a study in PA that found that it would generate 300-400,000 new jobs. It will raise wages for employees and give companies ability to compete worldwide

Master: It would also transform how doctors work. There probably would be additional care that would be given, particularly to the 29 million people who don’t have insurance coverage right now. You would also be eliminating the classism– the stigma of medicaid.

Question: Misconceptions and lies about single payer. The biggest one is that that it costs more. So, we’re going to save $500 billion a year and cover everyone and get rid of co-pay.

Chuck: Dental and mental health, eye care, transport– it’s comprehensive health care. They’re all covered. Folks have a floor under their feet. Chuck– choice of provider. Under single payer you’ll have far greater choice. Insurance companies preclude confine and limit who yu can see. You’ll have choice of access to hospitals, providers.

One of the canards of single payer is that it rations healthcare. Administrative costs in other countries. are 2-4% and it’s 20-25% in the US.

Question: The claim is that there are long waiting lists that lead to people dying. Is that true? single payer reduces quality– people wait and die?

Richard: Large out of pocket and deductible expenses– people see self-rationing (in the US) at the beginning of the year elective surgeries are reduced.

Chuck: we are living under the terms of the ACA and we are seeing utilization of healthcare at a 30 year low. The problem in the US is not just the 29 million without insurance. It’s the 100 million who are underinsured.

Chuck: People have a piece of paper that says they have insurance. There are four tiers of insurance. Platinum, gold, silver, then bronze. At the top level people are paying a lot more in premiums and they have lower co-pays and deductibles.

When you get to the bronze level, people have huge deductibles and co-pays, so folks don’t have the wherewithal when they need it. Look at a single mom makes $35,000 a year, with two kids. A low end plan requires her to come up with $3500 deductible. Where does she come up with it. So they stay away from the doctors.

Chuck: A third of the population are underinsured.

Question: Are there statistics on how under the underinsured function differently regarding healthcare.

Master: They cut their pills in half because they can’t afford them. 25% OF PEOPLE who get a prescription don’t fill their prescription, or go to the pharmacist instead of the doctor.

We’re 19 out of 19 industrialized countries in terms of death by preventable disease because there are economic barriers to care. Depending on the year there 1-1.5 million personal bankruptcies in the US. About 60% of those bankruptcies are medical bill related. This is really a burden on people in the US and the anxiety that people feel.

If they lose their job. What a terrible thing for a breadwinner to lose his or her job and to ultimately have the family not have health care.

People are dying from illnesses they can’t afford to have treated. And all the while, the rich and the right-wing tell us the federal government “can’t afford” to save American lives, and the federal deficit is “unsustainable.”

All lies.

There is much more to this disgraceful story. See

When Donald Trump says he wants to “make America great again,” he should begin with making us a first-world nation in healthcare, rather than worrying about how many people are allowed to carry guns in public, or how many Mexicans and Muslims are here.

The greatest crisis in America today is the lack of a Medicare for All program. Medicare for All would add stimulus dollars to the economy while saving lives.

Is it too good to be true?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.


Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. There was a dip below zero in 2015. Recessions are cured by a rising red line.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.



12 thoughts on “Single payer: Too good to be true. Is that the problem?

  1. There is fourth bunch of naysayers Rodger, a big bunch – a bunch I call the “slippery slope” bunch. Those are the heroes and ideology guardians of the “American way of life”, those who claim that any government involvement in our daily lives, especially if it costs the government money, is a slippery slope that leads to socialism and communism. From their paranoia one might think that the Russians and Red Chinese are still out there, lurking, ready to move in, if our government spends one dime helping its people. To them imaginary socialism is a fate worse than death by indigence.


  2. “Sanders has given us a hint about what he will do after being elected, however. He has hired Stephanie Kelton to be his chief economist.

    Kelton is extremely knowledgeable about Monetary Sovereignty. She knows the federal government cannot run short of dollars; she knows federal deficits are necessary for economic growth.

    Bernie wouldn’t have hired Stephanie unless he plans to educate the public about the facts.”

    Why hasn’t Kelton and or Wray told Bernie, “There is already in the budget $728 billion per year available for “Medicare for all” DEBT SOLUTION.
    The interest on the Fed bonds that we are PAYING to the top 10%ers is close to $700 billion (2015 entitlement) and is expected to be over $728 billion for 2016. It is in the budget as “debt service” on debt.That does not satisfy the GREED of the banks so now the Fed has instituted a new entitlement..”that will likely total $24 billion in 2016″..”for holding our money in deposit.” Please anyone ask L Randal Wray, “Is this correct” Please also ask ANYONE that wishes to cut ENTITLEMENTS !Solution is a proven method: Call the bonds and replace them with 0% interest bonds.(Add as L Randall Wray stated, “When I’ve engaged advocates of debt-free money, my protestations always generate confusion and the topic gets switched to government payment of interest. The “debt-free money” cranks hate payment of interest by government. I’m not sure, but I think what they really want to do is to prohibit government payment of interest.
    That is fine with me. ZIRP forever. Stop paying interest on bank reserves, and stop issuing Treasury bills and bonds. I’m with them. Advocate ZIRP…”
    Then proceed to pay off the entire Federal Debt?
    ***The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004****
    As the chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee observed in the 1980s, the entire federal debt could actually be paid in this way. The Federal Reserve has already established that it can issue $4.5 trillion in accounting-entry QE without triggering hyperinflation. In fact, it has not succeeded in triggering the modest inflation the exercise was designed for. As with QE, paying the federal debt in this way would just be an asset swap, replacing an interest-bearing obligation with a non-interest-bearing one. The market for goods and services would not be flooded with “new” money that would inflate the prices of consumer goods, because the bond holders would not consider themselves any richer than before. They presumably had their money in bonds in the first place because they wanted to save it rather than spend it. They would no doubt continue to save it, either as cash or by investing it in some other interest-generating securities.
    The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004, when the US Treasury called a 30-year bond issue before its due date. The bonds were redeemed “at par” to avoid a 9-1/8% interest rate, which was then well above market rates. The Treasury’s January 15, 2004 announcement said that payment would be made “in book entry form,” meaning numbers were simply entered into the Treasury’s online money market fund (Treasury Direct). In effect, the money just moved from an online savings account to an online depository account, converting interest-bearing bonds into non-interest-bearing cash.
    Where did the Treasury get the money to refinance this $3 billion bond issue at a lower interest rate? Whether it came from the private banking system or from the Federal Reserve, it was no doubt created out of thin air. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1935:
    When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered . . . they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.
    The US government can just as easily create this money by a bookkeeping entry itself. It can and it should, to avoid the interest charges that compound the national debt and make it unrepayable.
    Quoting Thomas Edison again:
    If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way.
    Comments by Justaluckyfool ( )
    ( “You are always welcome to share, copy, plagiarize, improve, etc..any comments.)
    Read and challenge:SODDYISM.


    1. “As L. Randall Wray stated, ‘When I’ve engaged advocates of debt-free money, my protestations always generate confusion and the topic gets switched to government payment of interest. The ‘debt-free money’ cranks hate payment of interest by government. I’m not sure, but I think what they really want to do is to prohibit government payment of interest.”


      That’s not what the “debt-free money” people are saying. In England they call themselves “positive money” people. They erroneously insist that central governments create no money, and that all money is created by banks as loans. They talk about President Lincoln issuing “greenbacks” during the U.S. Civil War. They want the U.S. government to issue “greenbacks again – which of course the U.S. government already does.

      Mr. Wray fails to understand their error. Therefore Wray is himself in error. He thinks the “debt-free money” people want money that is neither a credit nor a debt — which is impossible, since all money is both a credit and a debt, regardless of where money comes from. But this does not mean that all money consists of bank loans.

      So, while Wray talks about all money being debt (which is correct), the “debt-free money” people talk about all money being created as bank loans (which is incorrect). These are two different topics. But Wray doesn’t understand that.

      Wray is as cement-headed as are the “debt-free money” people. Consider his ridiculous “jobs guarantee,” or his false claim that “taxes drive money” (even though many countries with sovereign currencies have no taxes). I’ve even seen Wray refer to (non-existent) U.S. government “trust funds.” And don’t get me started on his inexcusably poor writing skills.

      The Truth is too important for us to rely on mere academicians to tell it.


    1. “Sanders knows.”

      All federal politicians know, since all federal politicians are involved in the federal budgeting process, whereby dollars are created out of thin air.

      However, politicians pretend that they don’t know, for three reasons…

      [1] To make us grovel before them. Politicians are like the keepers of a bottomless well. The water in the well is inexhaustible, but the keepers pretend that the well is dry, so that we must beg them for water, while we kill each other for every drop that the keepers give us.

      [2] Because politicians work for the rich, who use the Big Lie to widen the Gap between themselves and everyone below.

      [3] Because the masses also use the Big Lie to widen the Gap between themselves and everyone below. Hence, the masses don’t want to hear the truth. They would boo Sanders off the stage if he spoke the truth. Even his strongest supporters would dump him.

      Therefore Sanders is forced to play the game. He talks about increasing taxes to pay for Single Payer, but this does not necessarily mean that Sanders would actually increase taxes if he were President.


  3. I think the average American’s desire for affordable health coverage is so strong that it outweighs the Big Lie. It even outweighs Gap dynamics — i.e. outweighs the average American’s desire to punish everyone below him on the scale of wealth, power and privilege.

    However these factors are in turn outweighed by cowardice.

    The average American assumes that he could never have Single Payer, since politicians are owned by the rich. Therefore he reverts back to Gap dynamics and the Big Lie. He opposes Single Payer, imagining that this will somehow keep him from joining the underclass. That is, he deludes himself that he can avoid falling to a lower social level by echoing the lies of the top level and its lackeys.

    Hate is a product of fear. Fear is a product of selfishness. Selfishness is a product of the delusion that each of us is an island.


    Hillary opposes Single Payer because she receives almost as much in bribes from the medical industry as from the financial industry.

    Ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner opposes Single Payer because Weiner is trying to work his way back into politics. Weiner strongly supported Single Payer until he had to resign in 2011 because of a “sexting” scandal.

    Forbes opposes Single Payer because it would increase federal spending on average people, and it would increase the federal deficit.


    1. Why would you not challenge a “Solution” ?
      Everyone claims, “you can not pay for it”
      Why would you not “***** “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and take it as your guide.”- Buddha[Gautama Siddharta] (563 – 483 BC),
      Challenge, edit, or improve the Solution then take it as your guide.
      There is a solution.
      REVERSE: What the Central Banks are doing; rather than making the rich richer have them
      …fuel the increase in wealth Equality and …” promote the general Welfare, and secure the
      Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…””
      True…or…false ?
      Is there $728billion in the budget for 2016 as payment for “DEBT SERVICE”
      If yes, then we can prove that this money can be used for “Medicare for all.
      True… or.. false?
      Can we prove that National debt does not ever really have to be paid off if it is at ZERO interest?
      If National debt is a stationary nominal amount that the sovereign groups owes and has not paid out, isn’t it the same as all money (all the wealth) that is owed to the community that is stored in “deposit” in the Central Bank, waiting for demand of redemption?
      This deposit could stay there forever along with the trillions of wealth that has not been circulated; but only if there is NO INTEREST ATTACHED!
      The only real portion that may need to be addressed is that which is held by other sovereignty, which must be paid “upon demand.
      Please challenge this fools interpretation of SODDYISM.
      And of course, the view of Kelton and Wray.



    In the field of macroeconomics there are liars (e.g. deficit hawks), hucksters (e.g. Paul Krugman) and – worst of all – vacillators such as Susan Webber (aka “Yves Smith” of Naked Capitalism).

    Vacillators are the worst because they “get it,” only to turn around and echo the Big Lie.

    For example, Susan Webber admits that taxes do not pay for the federal government. Then she claims that that removing the Social Security tax cap would benefit workers.

    Webber also vacillates regarding the euro. (Her writings on the euro are the worst of all.) Currently she is leaning toward facts and truth. However tomorrow she will swing the other way again.

    Yesterday she discussed a paper by GMO (Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. LLC), a Boston-based asset management firm led by British investor Jeremy Grantham.

    GMO supposedly has $118 billion in assets under management as of March 2015.

    The paper debunks some common aspects of the Big Lie such as

    Myth 1: Governments are like households
    Myth 2: Creating money to finance budget deficits is inflationary
    Myth 3: Budget deficits or a high “national debt” lead to high interest rates
    Myth 4: Budget deficits are unsustainable
    Myth 5: The “national debt” is a burden on future generations

    The paper also says (correctly) that monetary policy has little effect on the real economy, but fiscal policy has a major effect.

    Susan Webber accepts all this, but tomorrow she will disagree with it. Sometimes she affirms the truth, only to contradict it later in the very same blog post.

    Therefore I don’t read the “Naked Capitalism” blog. I just chanced upon this latest item because it was reprinted in a different blog.

    Deficit hawks are fun because their lies are so easily debunked. Hucksters like Paul Krugman are ignored, since they make no sense at all. But the vacillators are very annoying indeed.


  5. Here are some of the things Forbes, the magazine of the rich, says about Medicare for All.

    Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare For All’ Would Be A Disaster For All,/a>

    Unsurprisingly, (Medicare) is headed toward bankruptcy. Medicare’s latest annual report revealed that its main Part A trust fund — for Hospital Insurance — will be exhausted in 15 years.

    The feds will then have to sharply cut benefits, raise the payroll taxes used to fund it — or raid the rest of the federal budget to cover seniors’ care.

    Here, Forbes continues to peddle the garbage that our Monetarily Sovereign federal government can run short of the dollars it originally created from thin air and continues to create every day, simply by spending.

    The notion that “Medicare is headed toward bankruptcy” is a “pants on fire” lie, that demonstrates the real bankruptcy is in Forbes’ supply of truth. The lesson: Never believe anything you read in Forbes.

    Seniors themselves are increasingly rejecting traditional Medicare in favor of a privately administered alternative called Medicare Advantage. This program lets seniors choose private insurance plans that contract with Medicare to provide benefits.

    100% Forbes bullshit. Seniors are not rejecting Medicare. In fact, you must have Medicare to use Medicare advantage.

    People use Medicare Advantage plans because they cost less (they offer restricted services — HMOs, PPOs), not because (as Forbes implies) people prefer that their doctor and hospital be paid by private insurance rather than by the federal government.

    The lesson: Same lesson. Never believe anything you read in Forbes. It is owned by the rich.

    These Medicare Advantage plans often provide better benefits than traditional Medicare. For example, seniors don’t have to purchase supplementary “Medigap” insurance policies — policies that enrollees need to plug gaps in coverage under standard Medicare plans.

    Sorry Forbes, but with Medicare for All there would be no need for Medigap policies — one reason the insurance companies hate it.

    Canadians looking for treatment must wait for care, even if they’re in desperate need. Alberta Health Services, for example, reports that 90 percent of patients who need back surgery have to wait up to almost nine months.

    Forbes is playing with fake numbers, but any problems have to do with a simple fact: The program is so good, more people use it. The solution is not to dump a good plan, but rather to build more hospitals and to graduate more doctors.

    Read the article and you will see lie after lie after lie, but the bottom line is this: On behalf of the insurance companies, Forbes is trying to convince you that Medicare is no good.

    Every negative comment about “Medicare for All” would apply equally o Medicare. But people on Medicare overwhelmingly love it.

    Forbes comments about “Medicare for All” were exactly the same comments we heard when Medicare itself first was proposed.

    Now, all you folks on Medicare: Would you like to give up your Medicare?

    I sure wouldn’t.


    1. For the Forbes people and for right-wingers in general, economics is a game, or at most it is like a high-school-level debate. Meanwhile their evil causes real people to needlessly suffer and die.

      This Forbes author, Sally Pipes, grew up in Canada where she enjoyed Single Payer. She is dedicated to preventing Americans from having Single Payer like she had

      She has a plush office in downtown San Francisco, and she is well-paid by companies like Pfizer and Exxon Mobile to write filth like that above.

      I sincerely wish on her an advanced case of brain cancer.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s