Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Yet another failure for socialized medicine or anything else.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
The British NHS wait lists are getting so bad that patients are going to private providers.  It would no doubt be worse without the private sector which mysteriously manages to avoid these kinds of problems.

Here is a defector from the Soviet Union to explain how bad socialized medicine can get.  This is particularly true when there is no private sector to go to which was the case in the Soviet Union.
You are talking about the Soviet Union. Remember, of course, that its progress is from the wreck of the Romanov dynasty, a society rotten to the core.

The Soviet economy never adopted the discipline of the market. It was always adept at demanding sacrifices. Unable or unwilling to reward those, it did not get them. Without the discipline of the market, it could only use fear. Fear does not bring out competence. It is telling that Soviet physicians who left the USSR for America had to be retrained in many aspects of medicine as those from most European countries (most of which have socialized medicine) don't.

The rate of 7.8 abortions per Soviet woman sounds like an exaggeration -- but a country with no market system that tries to raise its birth rate by not making birth control readily available gets such a result. Add to this, as many Christians will, an amoral society that rejects all religion in the name of socialist progress can make people callous toward the unborn. Even of abortion is legal in America it is an ethical crisis. I'm also guessing that prostitution was rampant in the Soviet Union, and abortion is practically a condition of employment as a prostitute.

The Soviet Union was a poor country. It rejected the market on everything and remained a command society in its economics to its end. Countries with free enterprise do their socialism better than countries without free enterprise.
There are a lot of usual tropes there.  You have the Red distrust of Big Government, which goes with the Blue distrust of Big Industry.  You have the Red love of independence fighting the Blue drive for strong communities.  You have the Red satisfaction with being healthy and wealthy, fighting the Blue perspective of providing a common service to all.  You have Red service to an elite who can afford it better if no service goes to those who can’t, vs the blue drive to have all folk being equal.  You quietly have a Red drive to serve only one’s own vs a Blue inclusiveness.

There are certainly excuses to look at the problem from different angles.  I happen to think that health care is a basic right, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and all that, a right that should be shared by all rather than limited to a healthy and wealthy few.  If you are one of the healthy and wealthy few, it is easy to take another perspective, to take worst cases and make absurd extrapolations.

As is, the system is centered on profits, and is a mess.  It is easy to dump on the current system from whatever perspective one chooses, and place the blame on the other guys.   It is hard to fix it, hard to overcome the profit and short sighted perspectives.
(08-12-2018, 09:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of usual tropes there.

This has happened everywhere socialized medicine has been implemented.  Here is an example from the Canada.






It is not simply a problem with the Soviet Union.

Just in case you think Crowder is making this up here is a CBC story on the problem.
(08-13-2018, 01:45 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-12-2018, 09:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of usual tropes there.

This has happened everywhere socialized medicine has been implemented.  Here is an example from the Canada.






It is not simply a problem with the Soviet Union.

Just in case you think Crowder is making this up here is a CBC story on the problem.

Nope, the perceived problems are those that match your world view.  There are shortcomings, yes.  Few will indeed claim the US system as perfect, or any system as perfect.  However, clinging tightly to one perspective only, favoring extremism, leaves problems unsolved.
(08-12-2018, 03:35 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]The British NHS wait lists are getting so bad that patients are going to private providers.  It would no doubt be worse without the private sector which mysteriously manages to avoid these kinds of problems.

Here is a defector from the Soviet Union to explain how bad socialized medicine can get.  This is particularly true when there is no private sector to go to which was the case in the Soviet Union.

The NHS is, and has been, dramatically underfunded by the Tories who would love to kill it if they can.  An increase in funding was just approved, because the public demanded it.  Note: the UK only spends ~9% of GDP on healthcare.  The US spends ~17% for worse overall health results.  Also noteworthy: British subjects love their NHS, and wonder what we are thinking with our system.
(08-13-2018, 01:45 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-12-2018, 09:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of usual tropes there.

This has happened everywhere socialized medicine has been implemented.  Here is an example from the Canada.

<<<<<<<< video deleted >>>>>>>>>>>>

It is not simply a problem with the Soviet Union.

Just in case you think Crowder is making this up here is a CBC story on the problem.

Arguing this case is a waste of time, when the issue really falls to excessive capacity, with excessive cost (the US, but still less than needed), or lower capacity with wait times (Canada and others) or outright denial of services and excessive costs (also the US, if you aren't insured). Personally, I'll wait for care that's not critical over those other options, though our Medicare system seems to keep costs in check and avoid the wait times by offering supplemental coverage to those willing and able to buy it.
(08-13-2018, 01:40 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-13-2018, 01:45 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-12-2018, 09:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of usual tropes there.

This has happened everywhere socialized medicine has been implemented.  Here is an example from the Canada.

<<<<<<<< video deleted >>>>>>>>>>>>

It is not simply a problem with the Soviet Union.

Just in case you think Crowder is making this up here is a CBC story on the problem.

Arguing this case is a waste of time, when the issue really falls to excessive capacity, with excessive cost (the US, but still less than needed), or lower capacity with wait times (Canada and others) or outright denial of services and excessive costs (also the US, if you aren't insured).   Personally, I'll wait for care that's not critical over those other options, though our Medicare system seems to keep costs in check and avoid the wait times by offering supplemental coverage to those willing and able to buy it.

Medicine is more costly in America because

(1) new physicians typically have huge student loans to pay off, which compels them to do specialization which allows bigger billings. Contrast Germany, where education is very cheap. Physicians charge less because supply and demand makes more physicians available.

(2) the tendency of medicine to fit the corporate model, complete with large bureaucratic staffs that cost big money.

(3) heavy reliance upon insurance companies to monitor the medical care, which implies a for-profit bureaucracy, and paperwork requirements for medical offices and physicians who end up paying for office staff, which is not cheap.  Bureaucracies are never efficient.

(4) monopoly pricing of many medicines.

(5) lawsuits involving ambulance-chasing attorneys.

...Physicians overseas are not flocking from wealthy European countries to the USA. Such would be evidence of a better deal for American physicians.

A big fault is that one can be priced out of medicine, especially in mental health, and be priced into the grave.
(08-13-2018, 01:30 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-12-2018, 03:35 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]The British NHS wait lists are getting so bad that patients are going to private providers.  It would no doubt be worse without the private sector which mysteriously manages to avoid these kinds of problems.

Here is a defector from the Soviet Union to explain how bad socialized medicine can get.  This is particularly true when there is no private sector to go to which was the case in the Soviet Union.

The NHS is, and has been, dramatically underfunded by the Tories who would love to kill it if they can.  An increase in funding was just approved, because the public demanded it.  Note: the UK only spends ~9% of GDP on healthcare.  The US spends ~17% for worse overall health results.  Also noteworthy: British subjects love their NHS, and wonder what we are thinking with our system.

Wait lists are endemic to socialized medicine and noticed that you did provide any references about the relative costs of medical care in he US.  Here is one example how government regulation increases the cost of medical care in the US. Imagine what the other tens of thousands pages laws and regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations are doing to the cost of health care.






For those of you with some intellectual curiosity might actually want to spend some time reading his recently published book on the Progressive Era.  It is interesting how often it was established players were the ones asking for regulation.
No kidding, I just got a letter from the Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Association to say to put locks on the barn door long after the horses left the property...
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
 
Therefore, this is why Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist, instead he is a Social Democrat. Denmark’s Prime Minister had to explain to the media that Bernie Sanders was wrong in saying Denmark is a Socialist Country. But Denmark is a Market Economy (although a huge welfare system) as opposed to a Socialist country. This is the case throughout the countries of Western Europe.
 
The question we need to ask is the following; is Health care part of the means of production, distribution and exchange?
(09-06-2018, 06:23 PM)Teejay Wrote: [ -> ]A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
 
Therefore, this is why Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist, instead he is a Social Democrat. Denmark’s Prime Minister had to explain to the media that Bernie Sanders was wrong in saying Denmark is a Socialist Country. But Denmark is a Market Economy (although a huge welfare system) as opposed to a Socialist country. This is the case throughout the countries of Western Europe.
 
The question we need to ask is the following; is Health care part of the means of production, distribution and exchange?

The other question is whether healthcare is a human right.  It is listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed (Eleanor Roosevelt?) and Congress ratified, which makes it theoretically rule of law.  And yet, some US conservatives deny human rights, equality and law, and think they can continue to make the old values dominant indefinitely.  I don't think so.

The two questions can have different answers.  Some things are part of the system of distribution, but are not rights.  You can have basic rights to health care, food, shelter and retirement without having a right to a yacht, yet all require that goods and services be produced, distributed and exchanged.

But there is also a question of word definition.  It means something different for a European to use the word 'socialist' than an American.  You have to watch the definition changes too.
(09-06-2018, 06:23 PM)Teejay Wrote: [ -> ]Therefore, this is why Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist, instead he is a Social Democrat.

Why does he call himself a Socialist then? Last time I checked, many Americans HATE Socialism.
People who know him well realize that he isn't going to collectivize farms, confiscate businesses or other private property, or establish gulags.

In Vermont he can call himself a Socialist. Among Cuban-descended Floridians, "socialist" means Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, anathemas.
(08-12-2018, 12:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]You are talking about the Soviet Union. Remember, of course, that its progress is from the wreck of the Romanov dynasty, a society rotten to the core.

The Soviet economy never adopted the discipline of the market. It was always adept at demanding sacrifices. Unable or unwilling to reward those, it did not get them. Without the discipline of the market, it could only use fear. Fear does not bring out competence.  It is telling that Soviet physicians who left the USSR for America had to be retrained in many aspects of medicine as those from most European countries  (most of which have socialized medicine) don't.

The rate of 7.8 abortions per Soviet woman sounds like an exaggeration -- but a country with no market system that tries to raise its birth rate by not making birth control readily available gets such a result. Add to this, as many Christians will, an amoral society that rejects all religion in the name of socialist progress can make people callous toward the unborn. Even of abortion is legal in America it is an ethical crisis. I'm also guessing that prostitution was rampant in the Soviet Union, and abortion is practically a condition of employment as a prostitute.    

The Soviet Union was a poor country. It rejected the market on everything and remained a command society in its economics to its end. Countries with free enterprise do their socialism better than countries without free enterprise.
You don't think blue America would end up being very similar to the Soviet Union. Where would blue America's progress be coming from other from the wreck of an American based system that blue fools like you and others are accustomed to and are used to experiencing the benefits associated with its higher standards of living. Yes,  the Soviet Union was a poor country that was full of largely uneducated peasants who were clueless and decades behind the development of the USA at the time.

Dude, a godless world has no basis for moral values/principles, right and wrong, whatsoever. Basically, if you're going to round up and execute a royal family or cut the heads off kings and queens or round up, rob, enslave and execute millions of a particular group and whatever else, the human sense of morality and the common belief in morality has to be removed. You come across as being about as smart as the low down slugs who supported and voted in the Nazi's. Am I worried about the Nazi's or fascism? Nope. The American Right Crushed The NAZI'S and destroyed fascism. I'm going to ask you a question, how long would you expect to survive in a godless world with no Christian influence or Christian belief or Christian values.

In my opinion, the blues are walking a fine line that has few limitations. Oh, we heard a ton about the person who mailed the Democrats pipe bombs but we didn't hear much of anything about the person who mailed the Republicans poison previously. Do you think one may have been a direct response to the other that was largely ignored? Here's the deal, if we start seeing groups of dead Democrats, you'll be seeing what happens when the media is no longer interested in remaining fair and balanced and is more interested in pushing liberal agenda's. It's only a matter of time before the Democrats are dealt a nasty wake up call that forces an inward look and reassessment of themselves as people and the clowns you have in Washington aren't going to be up for the challenges that lay ahead. I've been engaging in a form of political warfare with you dumb bastards for over a decade and things aren't even serious yet. You've seen me when things aren't so serious yet. Can you imagine what it's going to be like, what I'm going to be like when things get serious? Do you think I'm going to be fucking around with you and Eric or do you think I'm going to be going straight at your Democrats and acting more like a fucking liberal? I don't have a problem with making Democratic lives miserable and I don't have a problem with a Republican group scarring the shit out of a black liberal cunt with a big fucking mouth or a worthless pansy white male who thinks his title gives him power that he doesn't have naturally and I don't have a problem with CNN dealing with bomb threats or a crowd throwing bricks and rocks at its windows and destroying its property. Basically, I believe in the concept of two being able to play the same game. Now, the goody two shoes liberal or goody two shoes conservative may not like it and may be diabolically opposed to it but who cares because both them are pretty much aren't powerful or persuasive enough to stop it. All they can do is say boo hoo and bitch and whine about it.
(11-14-2018, 06:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]You don't think blue America would end up being very similar to the Soviet Union. Where would blue America's progress be coming from other from the  wreck of an American based system that blue fools like you and others are accustomed to and are  used to experiencing the benefits associated with its higher standards of living. Yes,  the Soviet Union was a poor country that was full of largely uneducated peasants who were clueless and decades behind the development of the  USA at the time.

Dude, a godless world has no basis for moral values/principles, right and wrong, whatsoever. Basically, if you're going to round up and execute a royal family or cut the heads off kings and queens or round up, rob, enslave and execute millions of a particular group and whatever else, the human sense of morality and the common belief in morality has to be removed.  You come across as being about as smart as the low down slugs who supported and voted in the Nazi's. Am I worried about the Nazi's or fascism? Nope. The American Right Crushed The NAZI'S and destroyed fascism.  I'm going to ask you a question, how long would you expect to survive in a godless world with no Christian influence or Christian belief or Christian values.

In my opinion, the blues are walking a fine line that has few limitations. Oh, we heard a ton about the person who mailed the Democrats pipe bombs but we didn't hear much of anything about the person who mailed the Republicans poison previously. Do you think one may have been a direct response to the other that was largely ignored? Here's the deal, if we start seeing groups of  dead Democrats, you'll be seeing what happens when the media is no longer interested in remaining fair and balanced and is more interested in pushing liberal agenda's. It's only a matter of time before the Democrats are dealt a nasty wake up call that forces an inward look and reassessment of themselves as people and the clowns you have in Washington aren't going to be up for the challenges that lay ahead. I've been engaging in a form of political warfare with you dumb bastards for over a decade and things aren't even serious yet. You've seen me when things aren't so serious yet. Can you imagine what it's going to be like, what I'm going to be like when things get serious? Do you think I'm going to be fucking around with you and Eric or do you think I'm going to be going straight at your Democrats and acting more like a fucking liberal? I don't have a problem with making Democratic lives miserable and I don't have a problem with a Republican group scarring the shit out of a black liberal cunt with a big fucking mouth or a worthless pansy white male who thinks his title gives him power that he doesn't have naturally and I don't have a problem with CNN dealing with bomb threats or a crowd throwing bricks and rocks at its windows and destroying its property. Basically, I believe in the concept of two being able to play the same game. Now, the goody two shoes liberal or goody two shoes conservative may not like it and may be diabolically opposed to it but who cares because both them are pretty much aren't powerful or persuasive enough to stop it. All they can do is say boo hoo and bitch and whine about it.

The problems were very different. The Soviet Union was an autocratic system. There was no internal check save violence over the Communist Party. There was no way to correct when the Communist elites became mostly concerned with the power of the Communist elites.

We have a democracy. Our problem was prejudice, in that some voters would vote to kill the goose that laid the golden egg rather than let Those People have any golden eggs. There was an allegiance between the elites seeking political power and monetary advantage and the deplorables.

Also, to a great degree, politicians served those willing and able to donate rather than serving the People.

Is this stable? Is prejudice stronger than self interest? Do advertisements always sway more than policy? When is enough enough?

I am hoping the people continue to get more hostile to the establishments of both parties. That is about Trump’s only positive from my perspective, how he exposed the Republican inability to serve the people. That is one place the Republicans are running ahead.

I am looking at how Republican ideas of voodoo economics have failed repeatedly, and the more responsible Democrats have had to pick up the pieces. I would laugh long and loud at the Republican concept of economics if only it was the least bit funny.

I am hoping Bernie Sanders has learned and let people see how to collect enough money to be heard while not being beholden to the giver.

I am hoping the deplorables will age out.

I am hoping those who have ignored global warming will wake up.

As for morality, you are holding up the Catholic supporters of molesting priests and the Evangelical advocates of white male priviledge, and yes the KKK, as models.

I lean much more towards the Enlightenment’s version of secular and political morality, with its ideas of checks and balances, equality, rights and freedom from interference.

There is much from traditional religious figures to be noted and approved of, in a 'do as I preach not what I do' way. Organized religion has lost its way. I keep much of what Jesus, the Tao, and the Neo Wiccans have had to offer about personal morality. Do as you will, but harm none.

But in the political world, I look much more to the Enlightenment values than those who would rather tell others they are inferior, continue privilege, yet will push their morality and religion on others when they get the chance. There is just too much hypocrisy among the Republican leadership these days.

Not so long ago, the Reagan alliance was of the militaristic neo cons, big oil, and Evangelical religion. The Neo cons have been discredited. The very real superiority in fighting up front wars with tanks, high tech, a few expensive planes, uniforms, and front lines does not dominate in the insurgent proxy world of today. Big oil is living on borrowed time these days, and I think they know it. The Evangelists and the Enlightenment values are clashing heavily, with the old prejudice and privilege out in the open.

So the fight is democracy against the influence of the elite. Always, the elite have had too much money, too many resources, too much influence with government. We can do something about it peacefully, while the old Soviet Union couldn’t. The imbalance of wealth is huge. That it leans in the direction of the establishment is interesting, as is the impatience of the people with their party’s establishments.

We will see…
(09-07-2018, 07:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2018, 06:23 PM)Teejay Wrote: [ -> ]A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
 
Therefore, this is why Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist, instead he is a Social Democrat. Denmark’s Prime Minister had to explain to the media that Bernie Sanders was wrong in saying Denmark is a Socialist Country. But Denmark is a Market Economy (although a huge welfare system) as opposed to a Socialist country. This is the case throughout the countries of Western Europe.
 
The question we need to ask is the following; is Health care part of the means of production, distribution and exchange?

The other question is whether healthcare is a human right.  It is listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed (Eleanor Roosevelt?) and Congress ratified, which makes it theoretically rule of law.  And yet, some US conservatives deny human rights, equality and law, and think they can continue to make the old values dominant indefinitely.  I don't think so.

The two questions can have different answers.  Some things are part of the system of distribution, but are not rights.  You can have basic rights to health care, food, shelter and retirement without having a right to a yacht, yet all require that goods and services be produced, distributed and exchanged.

But there is also a question of word definition.  It means something different for a European to use the word 'socialist' than an American.  You have to watch the definition changes too.
I already told you that it's a commodity. Theoretically speaking, whatever ties we have to the UN can be broken and American tax dollars can be removed. However, you are free and you have a right to pull your stakes and live under the UN if you'd like too.
Well, at least the old Soviet Union is out of the picture momentarily.

(11-14-2018, 10:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Lets see, we have a portion of a democracy that's voting to keep the entitlements that it's currently receiving and currently reliant upon. We have a portion of a democracy that's voting to receive more entitlements and a portion voting to have their wages raised by government. We have a portion voting to have their rising healthcare cost addressed by government. We have a portion voting to protect their abortion right. We have a portion voting to advance women. We have a portion voting to keep special rules that where put in place to advance particular groups in place. We have a portion affiliated with them voting to keep the federal funds flowing that basically pays their higher end wages and higher end lifestyles. We have a portion voting to keep government work coming their way and voting to keep their union pensions secured by the government. We have a portion voting to address climate change. We have a portion voting to get amnesty for family members or friends who are living here illegally. We have a portion voting against Trump. I'm sure there are portions that I didn't mention.

The long and short of it is that the government solves problems.  It takes money and laws to solve them.  You don't want to pay for someone else's solution.

Take roads for example.  You have to build, maintain and police roads to have anything like a modern civilization.  Multiply the weight of each vehicle, times the distance traveled, times a dollar constant, and you might have a fee to be paid for using the service.  Now, in rural areas, there is supposed to be independence and self reliance.  In this case, perhaps fewer vehicles and smaller ones traveling less far.  Urban areas require a greater service.  Let them pay for it?  Could a carbon tax do something similar?  Would dredging a harbor or providing air traffic control be essentially different?  Could we arrange a structure for breaking down the payment for services that is fair and non political if we paid for services specifically rather than taking from one big pot?

Of course, I started with an easy one.  Who pays for the new aircraft carrier?  Do I approve of its use?  Should pacifists not have to pay even if they are protected?

Long tough decisions have to be considered.  I could come back to fee based taxation.  However, how to answer every issue all at once?  It would take a very long post

(11-14-2018, 10:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]On the Republican side, you a few large American groups who are voting to keep America, American. BTW, these groups could careless about what blue America eventually becomes. How many blues are willing to die or loose a leg to keep our flag and our Constitution? The blue bloods aren't natural warriors like the red bloods.

Red America remains closer to the Agricultural Age.  Problems were solved by violence then.  Violence was glorified.  If kings had to have their privilege and power reduced, if slaves were to be freed, hold a war.  Violence was how it was done.  Red America remains a little better at it, though perhaps not as much as you say.  Have we moved beyond violence, though?  Might it be desirable to not push the violent solution?  Is it necessary to demonize, to make anyone who disagrees with you an enemy?

The Agricultural Age was a time of prejudice, pride, authoritarian government, constant war, class, and people kept brute force in their place.  A little of that lives on.  The S&H crises in the Anglo American Civilization mark a series of transformations from the old way to the new.  The Enlightenment values of equality, rights, representation with taxation, and the like were intended to break the old autocratic patterns.  I for one am a fan of the process.

It is not perfect.  In every crisis era we can only do so much.  In this case, as usual, it is the conservatives that are holding us back.

And there is yet a ways to go.  There is still prejudice.  There is still privilege.  There is still inequality.  There is still work to do, a new birth of freedom to be expected.

(11-14-2018, 10:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Funny, I keep hearing about the concern related to the influence of the so-called elite. It seems to me, the bulk of so-called elites are now stacked up on your side providing millions upon millions to help Democrats win back seats. So, you should be careful about who actually has influence over you now and who is feeding you information these days. Yes, I hate to say this but the Democratic voters are pretty stupid and self centered these days.

Self centered, yes.  Many want problems solved, services provided, and the government has been looking to save the elites rather than the people.  Stupid, no.  As I said, the people are mad at the Establishment of both parties.  The clock is ticking.

Hmm.  Last time around I quoted the Neo Wiccan catch phrase as an example of personal morality.  'Do as you will, but harm none.'

The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes rights to sustenance, shelter, health care and retirement.

One is a personal morality.  The other is a political document.  Yet how can one harm none if one does not believe in the rights in question?  How can you claim to be a light on a hill, a Christian?
Sounds nice, but who's gonna pay? Or do you know for sure that Jesus is returning?
(11-15-2018, 08:48 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds nice, but who's gonna pay? Or do you know for sure that Jesus is returning?

Jesus has not let me in on any plans.  I do not recommend counting on him to solve things.  I have heard that his kingdom is not of this world.

Proverbially, the two certainties are death and taxes.  I would assume that won't change.  I do know that some of the problems have to be solved, cannot be put off forever.
Pages: 1 2