Several years ago, Wendy's ran a very successful and memorable ad campaign with an old woman screaming, "Where's the Beef?" This ad's theme, for those who may have forgotten it or never seen it was that Wendy's competitor's hamburgers were very, very small, while Wendy's burgers were substantial. This same slogan can be used when talking about and/ or evaluating the main two programs that the President and the Congress have been spending so much time on - - health care, and joblessness.
Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech (it is beginning to seem like the "Speech of the Day" club) about how he would like to have Congress address the extremely high unemployment situation (What took so long?). Some of the President's suggestions included help for small businesses, transportation, energy- efficient homes, etc. Mr. Obama stated that the U.S. has to "spend our way out of this recession." Since more than 7 million Americans have lost their jobs since the recession began about two years ago, and the unemployment rate is 10% (that's the statistic although the reality is far higher), Mr. Obama called the rate "staggering" and made several proposals (cost estimates of about $150 billion +) he said would stimulate hiring and put Americans back to work again. Those proposals included: bridge and highway construction (MY NOTE- short-term and long-term, infrastructure programs usually add value and provide something eventually needed); for small business tax cuts (including elimination of capital gains if expenditure was accompanied by adding jobs); and credits for making homes more energy efficient. In addition, the President recommended more protections re health insurance for laid off workers, and suggested additional spending for seniors and veterans, and additional aid to states and municipalities so they won't have to lay off workers. This plan, of course, would have to go through and be approved by a splintered Congress, which is extremely time consuming and the result is unsure. All of this is being proposed while the President continues to talk about the need to address the growing Federal deficit. Many Republican leaders have already scoffed at this proposal, and if any program finally passes, I fear it may be another case of "too little, too late," and contain as much "pork" as effective program. It is always easy to criticize and point out the weaknesses in a plan, but isn't it about time for politicians to actually work FOR their constituency, instead of constantly playing politics (SEE YESTERDAY'S BLOG ABOUT POLITICIANS VS STATESMEN)?
In the meantime, the health plan debate goes on. Last night, an announcement was made that a compromise was reached where the "public option" would be replaced by a different alternative. There was another announcement that a vote was taken regarding language about abortion, and the more severe exclusionary language would not be included. Since the House bill that was passed last month will differ substantially from this Senate bill, a joint compromise bill will have to be arrived at, after which both the House and the Senate will have to approve. Further complicating the matter is certain language in each version appears to be distasteful to a large number of the supporters of the other version. The truly sad thing is, that after all this time and expense, if and when a final bill is approved, there is no assurance that it will be better, less expensive, or provide any better quality medical care. In fact, many independent (?) studies have indicated that the likelihood is that insurance will be more expensive for many, and provide lesser coverage for those fortunate enough to presently enjoy good medical insurance coverage. The costs, medical liability issues, unnecessary testing, expense of drugs, malpractice grants, etc. do NOT appear to have "made the cut" in either plan, but, of course, we do not really know what the final plan might look for. However, I have a hunch, that when all is said and done, that little voice in my head will hear the old lady chiming in, "Where's the Beef?"
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER at: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody)
MY CONSULTING WEBSITE: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons
MY REAL ESTATE WEBSITE: http://tinyurl.com/rgb242)
REMEMBER TO FOLLOW THIS BLOG, UPDATED SEVERAL TIMES/WK: http://tinyurl.com/rgbstake
Enjoy the Home of the RICH IDEAS, + RICH BRODY'S TAKE, w/ Blogs about RE, negotiations, finance, etc., Leadership Planning, politics, etc. While there are many points of view, this blog is intended to "cut through the spin," and provide a unique, innovative and provocative insight into current issues. The intent of the blog is to be updated several times per week. Real estate info: http://PortWashingtonLongIslandRealEstate.com and the PLAN2LEAD website: http://plan2lead.net
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
THANKSGIVING THANKS
Thanksgiving 2009 is a sadder year than most for many Americans. With the U.S. and most of the world in a deep recession, with high unemployment, with over 100,000 Americans still in "harms way" in battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it is more important than ever to step back and give thanks for our many blessings.
We should be grateful for the fact that Americans have more freedoms than almost any other place on the planet. We have the right to protest. We have the right to criticize our government. We have the right to elect our political leaders, and to vote out any politician that we are unhappy with. We have the ability to force politicians to better represent us by being vocal in our support or opposition of any policy.
Only in America, where we have free and democratic elections, do our citizens have the right to vote, and yet, in most elections, less than half of the eligible voters exercise that right. Here in Nassau County, NY, they are still counting the last of the votes in our County Supervisor race, and after over 240,000 votes have been counted, there is only a 160 vote difference. Now, when you consider that less than half the eligible voters actually voted, we can clearly say that whoever wins certainly has no mandate. But, we should be thankful that we have the rights!
Only in America, can I or anyone else, have the right to publish a blog, and as long as nothing illegal, libelous or slanderous is said, not worry about the legal ramifications! Only in America, can a former unknown become "famous" from a TV competition although finishing second, and then perform a controversial act on television that forced ABC to decide to cancel his morning GMA appearance, only to have CBS decide to have him on BOTH their morning, as well as their late night Letterman shows.
Only in America can we dwell on the negatives of the economy, and at the same time have Tiffany announce both revenues and earnings that far exceeded expectations.
Only in America, can we talk about the difficulty this year in keeping food pantries stocked sufficiently to feed the many feeling the pinch from the economy, and at the same time have Black Friday Christmas sales promotions all over the media.
Only in America can we talk about health care, yet have various solutions discussed that only address parts of the problem, while in some cases not considering the ramifications of some of the "solutions."
Only in America can we talk about justice for all, yet the justice that the wealthy, middle class, and poor enjoy is certainly often NOT the same justice!
Yet, with all its faults, we are lucky to be living in America. Here we can complain, we can argue, we can be charitable. Americans are amongst the most charitable people in the world, and in times of distress, have a long history of coming through. On this Thanksgiving holiday, we should all give thanks that we live in the U.S.
We should be grateful for the fact that Americans have more freedoms than almost any other place on the planet. We have the right to protest. We have the right to criticize our government. We have the right to elect our political leaders, and to vote out any politician that we are unhappy with. We have the ability to force politicians to better represent us by being vocal in our support or opposition of any policy.
Only in America, where we have free and democratic elections, do our citizens have the right to vote, and yet, in most elections, less than half of the eligible voters exercise that right. Here in Nassau County, NY, they are still counting the last of the votes in our County Supervisor race, and after over 240,000 votes have been counted, there is only a 160 vote difference. Now, when you consider that less than half the eligible voters actually voted, we can clearly say that whoever wins certainly has no mandate. But, we should be thankful that we have the rights!
Only in America, can I or anyone else, have the right to publish a blog, and as long as nothing illegal, libelous or slanderous is said, not worry about the legal ramifications! Only in America, can a former unknown become "famous" from a TV competition although finishing second, and then perform a controversial act on television that forced ABC to decide to cancel his morning GMA appearance, only to have CBS decide to have him on BOTH their morning, as well as their late night Letterman shows.
Only in America can we dwell on the negatives of the economy, and at the same time have Tiffany announce both revenues and earnings that far exceeded expectations.
Only in America, can we talk about the difficulty this year in keeping food pantries stocked sufficiently to feed the many feeling the pinch from the economy, and at the same time have Black Friday Christmas sales promotions all over the media.
Only in America can we talk about health care, yet have various solutions discussed that only address parts of the problem, while in some cases not considering the ramifications of some of the "solutions."
Only in America can we talk about justice for all, yet the justice that the wealthy, middle class, and poor enjoy is certainly often NOT the same justice!
Yet, with all its faults, we are lucky to be living in America. Here we can complain, we can argue, we can be charitable. Americans are amongst the most charitable people in the world, and in times of distress, have a long history of coming through. On this Thanksgiving holiday, we should all give thanks that we live in the U.S.
Monday, November 23, 2009
ECONOMIC NEWS,JOBS&HEALTH-What it all means?
Over the weekend, and this morning, there was a lot of news and reports bantered about regarding the US and World economies, joblessness predictions, and the proposed Health Plan. As some anticipated, house sales in October were up 10.1% over last year. Any increase is always good news, but since last year's number were so dismal, it's not as good news as it might seem. But, at least it's somewhat encouraging! Several sources have predicted that the worst of the joblessness numbers will be over by the end of the first quarter of 2010, but not before the rate rises somewhat to approximately 10.5%. These same sources are predicting a slight decrease in joblessness throughout the balance of 2010, and the consensus prediction for the year-end 2010 is approximately 9.6%. It is probably an indication of where we are at now that many are cheering a 9.6% unemployment rate as good news! The consensus among economists is that we are nearing the end of the recession, and the recession will end by the second or third quarter of 2010, and would then gradually improve based on other economic news and conditions.
The Senate, voting along straight party lines, voted 60-39 (Who was that 1 Republican who didn't vote?) to permit the health plan discussion to come to the Senate floor. However, at least 4 Democrats (who have been labeled by the media as Moderates) have stated that they voted to let the bill be discussed, but are opposed to the "Public Option." The media is also reporting that the liberal bloc of the Democratic Party has said that if the "Public Option" is removed, they believe the plan will be too watered- down, and they would then have to oppose the bill.
It is important to understand that because of certain peculiarities in the Senate's rules, that it takes 60 votes to pass this type of legislation, not just a majority. Since, to date, the Republicans have opposed the bill unanimously, it would take ALL Democrats and the 2 Independents voting Yea to advance the legislation. Further complicating the issue, is the politics involved since one-third of the Senate, and all of the House, is up for election in November 2010. That is the reason that the pro-plan advocates have been trying to get this accomplished as soon as possible, because politics will become an even greater factor the closer to the mid-term elections we get!
Proponents of this health legislation state that it is necessary to cover as many Americans as possible, control medical costs, and make the health care industry more responsible and fair. Opponents complain that the legislation proposed is excessively expensive, legislates medical care policy, and does not rein in the true causes of escalating medical costs. Opponents state that is essential to cap non-medical aspects of medical liability cases, permit insurance companies to be sold nationally to create "economies of scale," bring down the costs of drugs, reduce/ eliminate waste including excessive tests done(because doctors feel they need to protect themselves in a litiganous society).
The reality is that there are truths and fallacies on both sides of the political aisle, and unless our politicians magically begin to act as statesman, we will not get a good plan that works and accomplishes many needed areas. It is essential to remember that the costs and numbers that are put forward and publicized must be taken with a "grain of salt," because historically costs are higher and revenues are lower than the advance projections we are given.
In a previous blog, I discussed what I felt were the most important factors that needed to be discussed. Nobody has all the answers nor all the solutions, but I hope that whatever decision is made is responsible, effective and considers all the ramifications of their decisions. It is hard to believe that a 2,000 page piece of legislation has not been loaded with "pork" to get it passed! The challenge, as usual, is that most politicians consider their primary "job" running for office and getting elected, rather than being a statesman for the public good.
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody
GO TO MY CONSULTING SITE: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons
The Senate, voting along straight party lines, voted 60-39 (Who was that 1 Republican who didn't vote?) to permit the health plan discussion to come to the Senate floor. However, at least 4 Democrats (who have been labeled by the media as Moderates) have stated that they voted to let the bill be discussed, but are opposed to the "Public Option." The media is also reporting that the liberal bloc of the Democratic Party has said that if the "Public Option" is removed, they believe the plan will be too watered- down, and they would then have to oppose the bill.
It is important to understand that because of certain peculiarities in the Senate's rules, that it takes 60 votes to pass this type of legislation, not just a majority. Since, to date, the Republicans have opposed the bill unanimously, it would take ALL Democrats and the 2 Independents voting Yea to advance the legislation. Further complicating the issue, is the politics involved since one-third of the Senate, and all of the House, is up for election in November 2010. That is the reason that the pro-plan advocates have been trying to get this accomplished as soon as possible, because politics will become an even greater factor the closer to the mid-term elections we get!
Proponents of this health legislation state that it is necessary to cover as many Americans as possible, control medical costs, and make the health care industry more responsible and fair. Opponents complain that the legislation proposed is excessively expensive, legislates medical care policy, and does not rein in the true causes of escalating medical costs. Opponents state that is essential to cap non-medical aspects of medical liability cases, permit insurance companies to be sold nationally to create "economies of scale," bring down the costs of drugs, reduce/ eliminate waste including excessive tests done(because doctors feel they need to protect themselves in a litiganous society).
The reality is that there are truths and fallacies on both sides of the political aisle, and unless our politicians magically begin to act as statesman, we will not get a good plan that works and accomplishes many needed areas. It is essential to remember that the costs and numbers that are put forward and publicized must be taken with a "grain of salt," because historically costs are higher and revenues are lower than the advance projections we are given.
In a previous blog, I discussed what I felt were the most important factors that needed to be discussed. Nobody has all the answers nor all the solutions, but I hope that whatever decision is made is responsible, effective and considers all the ramifications of their decisions. It is hard to believe that a 2,000 page piece of legislation has not been loaded with "pork" to get it passed! The challenge, as usual, is that most politicians consider their primary "job" running for office and getting elected, rather than being a statesman for the public good.
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody
GO TO MY CONSULTING SITE: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons
Friday, November 20, 2009
America's Health Plan
Everyone, whether Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, would agree to a couple of things about our health care in the U.S.: (1) The costs have escalated dramatically, and continue to rise at an alarming rate even during a recession; (2) All Americans should receive adequate health care. From that point on, the politicians, "spinners," pundents, advocates, etc. take over, and create opposing plans, none of which address both of the things that they originally agreed upon.
The plan passed by the House, and what appears to be the plan being proposed in the Senate, differ in many major ways. Yet, neither of them addresses the two basic issues listed above! The House plan passed was approximately 2,000 pages of verbal legal jargon, that few representatives read in its entirety. Most representatives assign that "heavy lifing" to their aides, who then summarize the plan to the Congressman. The very fact that the plan was passed almost entirely by one party and opposed by the other, indicates that politics, rather trying to create the best plan, is the rule! The Senate is now bringing up a plan that all the details have NOT been disclosed, and needs 60 votes to even get to the Senate floor to be discussed.
The American public hears the health proposals via the "spin-meisters" and politicians and advocates, who only state part of the issue. The Republicans discuss the malpractice issue (and its related costs) and the Democrats avoid that issue because politically they don't want to offend the trial lawyers. The Democrats discuss mandating coverage, and the Republicans object to mandates and the related costs. The Democrats speak of taxing big earners in one version or large companies in another, without discussing the ramifications. The Republicans avoid discussing how to address adequate health care for all, and instead object to the costs of the Democrats plans. An objective observer would say that BOTH sides are "spinning" both the numbers and the plans to make their ideas seem better.
In other countries, there are public health programs. A dentist friend of mine from London recently developed an illness, which was taken care of expeditiously and effectively, because, as he put it, he had "private insurance." In the Bahamas, there are both public and private plans. Canada has had universal health care for many years. However, these countries have far smaller populations that in the U.S., and plans that work in one country may not work in all.
We need to develop a different frame of mind regarding many issues related to health care if we are to accomplish the important task of achieving the two worthy goals stated at the beginning of this blog. (1) Health insurance must be able to be sold across state lines. That would increase competition, offer more alternatives, and somewhat lower costs. (2) We have to cap non-medical malpractice liability payouts, so as to reduce overall health care costs, (3) We have to be much smarter in terms of forcing unfunded mandates on employers, hospitals, local governments, etc ., (4) We have to have a more efficient drug creation and review policy, to reduce both the costs of bringing drugs to market, and increase usage of generics, (5) We have to curb the use of the huge amount of unnecessary testing done, much of which is done by doctors to protect themselves from medical malpractice liability, (6) We need to reduce government waste, by the continuous use by governments of multiple, off duplicative layers of beaurocracy, (7) We must permit whatever economies of scale can be effectively used to reduce costs, (8) We must create a better electronic system where x-rays, tests, etc., taken in one locale, are easily available to licensed professionals elsewhere, (9) A greater emphasis on prevention is essential, (10) A fair evaluation as to when alternative methodologies might be an important part of the medical puzzle, and most importantly, (11) WE MUST "THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX."
The American public cannot let the politicians do "their thing" with an issue such as this, where any plan approved will most likely be a hodge-podge, mish-mosh, expensive and eventually dysfunctional and unworkable program, that we must simply reform again in a few years. This is too important - - - let's get it right the first time!!!
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody
The plan passed by the House, and what appears to be the plan being proposed in the Senate, differ in many major ways. Yet, neither of them addresses the two basic issues listed above! The House plan passed was approximately 2,000 pages of verbal legal jargon, that few representatives read in its entirety. Most representatives assign that "heavy lifing" to their aides, who then summarize the plan to the Congressman. The very fact that the plan was passed almost entirely by one party and opposed by the other, indicates that politics, rather trying to create the best plan, is the rule! The Senate is now bringing up a plan that all the details have NOT been disclosed, and needs 60 votes to even get to the Senate floor to be discussed.
The American public hears the health proposals via the "spin-meisters" and politicians and advocates, who only state part of the issue. The Republicans discuss the malpractice issue (and its related costs) and the Democrats avoid that issue because politically they don't want to offend the trial lawyers. The Democrats discuss mandating coverage, and the Republicans object to mandates and the related costs. The Democrats speak of taxing big earners in one version or large companies in another, without discussing the ramifications. The Republicans avoid discussing how to address adequate health care for all, and instead object to the costs of the Democrats plans. An objective observer would say that BOTH sides are "spinning" both the numbers and the plans to make their ideas seem better.
In other countries, there are public health programs. A dentist friend of mine from London recently developed an illness, which was taken care of expeditiously and effectively, because, as he put it, he had "private insurance." In the Bahamas, there are both public and private plans. Canada has had universal health care for many years. However, these countries have far smaller populations that in the U.S., and plans that work in one country may not work in all.
We need to develop a different frame of mind regarding many issues related to health care if we are to accomplish the important task of achieving the two worthy goals stated at the beginning of this blog. (1) Health insurance must be able to be sold across state lines. That would increase competition, offer more alternatives, and somewhat lower costs. (2) We have to cap non-medical malpractice liability payouts, so as to reduce overall health care costs, (3) We have to be much smarter in terms of forcing unfunded mandates on employers, hospitals, local governments, etc ., (4) We have to have a more efficient drug creation and review policy, to reduce both the costs of bringing drugs to market, and increase usage of generics, (5) We have to curb the use of the huge amount of unnecessary testing done, much of which is done by doctors to protect themselves from medical malpractice liability, (6) We need to reduce government waste, by the continuous use by governments of multiple, off duplicative layers of beaurocracy, (7) We must permit whatever economies of scale can be effectively used to reduce costs, (8) We must create a better electronic system where x-rays, tests, etc., taken in one locale, are easily available to licensed professionals elsewhere, (9) A greater emphasis on prevention is essential, (10) A fair evaluation as to when alternative methodologies might be an important part of the medical puzzle, and most importantly, (11) WE MUST "THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX."
The American public cannot let the politicians do "their thing" with an issue such as this, where any plan approved will most likely be a hodge-podge, mish-mosh, expensive and eventually dysfunctional and unworkable program, that we must simply reform again in a few years. This is too important - - - let's get it right the first time!!!
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody
Monday, November 9, 2009
HEALTH PLAN- Where we are really at?
Many have reported that the first step on achieving meaningful health care reform has been achieved when the US House of Representatives passed a nearly 2,000 page bill by the vote of 220- 215. It should be noted that only one Republican voted with the majority, and several more conservative Democrats voted against the bill. In order to get this bill to pass, the majority approved of very strong language prohibiting any funds to be used for abortions. The next step is for the Senate to vote on a health bill, and since the version in the Senate is considerably different from the bill in the House, if the Senate passes a bill, it would then go to a Senate-House Joint Committee gto "hammer out" a compromise bill. That bill would then have to be voted on by both the House and the Senate, and if approved, would then go President Obama to sign into law. It is very important to realize that this is a long process.
Even the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he has doubts that the legislation can even be voted on in the Senate this calendar year. The Senate filibuster rules also makes it that you need 60 of the 100 Senators to even bring a bill to a vote, and, at least publically, the Senate Republicans have almost nearly stated objections. In committee, the only Republican to vote with the majority was Senator Olympia Snow of Maine, and even she has said that she will not support a bill that includes the so-called "public option." Republicans have stated that this bill should emphasize reducing health care costs, and that the US economy cannot afford anything that will further increase the deficit. Because of all the various provisions of this legislation, neither supporters nor opponents are 100% clear on all the provisions. The only thing certain is that both sides will "spin" the issue!
Because of all the public discussion on the issue, my belief is that some "watered-down" version of a bill will eventually pass, and that both sides will claim victory, and how they have served and protected the American public.
What is truly uncertain is exactly who will really benefit from this legislation, exactly how much will this really cost, will health care be improved in this country, who and what will suffer, and what are all the long-term and short-term ramifications of either action or inaction on this issue. While everyone would tell you that they believe that everyone should receive quality medical coverage, does this, in the long-term address that? How would the costs of medical malpractice insurance, unnecessary medical tests, etc., be impacted by this legislation? What works and what does not work in other countries that have Universal coverage?
Doesn't it seem that the public should be truly informed about such important legislation? It may be an excellent paln - - it may be horrendous; but we have certainly not been informed of how the 85% of Americans who presently have medical coverage will be affected (will their insurance benefits improve; will it cost less; will there still be an incentive for doctors to practice; will drug approval be impacted; will alternative medicine be considered; will there be more provision for enhanced preventative medicine; etc?). How much will the plan really cost, and what protections are built in for the American taxpayer? How will this plan save the consumer money? If there are taxes that will be imposed to pay for this plan, what will be the potential negative impact on the overall economy, and on employer-provided health care? What will be the impact on other medical treatments such as: dentistry; optometry; chiropractry; alternative/ holistic practioners?
While I certainly don't know the complete answer, I believe we should ALL be asking some important questions!
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody)
Consulting Website: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons
Even the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he has doubts that the legislation can even be voted on in the Senate this calendar year. The Senate filibuster rules also makes it that you need 60 of the 100 Senators to even bring a bill to a vote, and, at least publically, the Senate Republicans have almost nearly stated objections. In committee, the only Republican to vote with the majority was Senator Olympia Snow of Maine, and even she has said that she will not support a bill that includes the so-called "public option." Republicans have stated that this bill should emphasize reducing health care costs, and that the US economy cannot afford anything that will further increase the deficit. Because of all the various provisions of this legislation, neither supporters nor opponents are 100% clear on all the provisions. The only thing certain is that both sides will "spin" the issue!
Because of all the public discussion on the issue, my belief is that some "watered-down" version of a bill will eventually pass, and that both sides will claim victory, and how they have served and protected the American public.
What is truly uncertain is exactly who will really benefit from this legislation, exactly how much will this really cost, will health care be improved in this country, who and what will suffer, and what are all the long-term and short-term ramifications of either action or inaction on this issue. While everyone would tell you that they believe that everyone should receive quality medical coverage, does this, in the long-term address that? How would the costs of medical malpractice insurance, unnecessary medical tests, etc., be impacted by this legislation? What works and what does not work in other countries that have Universal coverage?
Doesn't it seem that the public should be truly informed about such important legislation? It may be an excellent paln - - it may be horrendous; but we have certainly not been informed of how the 85% of Americans who presently have medical coverage will be affected (will their insurance benefits improve; will it cost less; will there still be an incentive for doctors to practice; will drug approval be impacted; will alternative medicine be considered; will there be more provision for enhanced preventative medicine; etc?). How much will the plan really cost, and what protections are built in for the American taxpayer? How will this plan save the consumer money? If there are taxes that will be imposed to pay for this plan, what will be the potential negative impact on the overall economy, and on employer-provided health care? What will be the impact on other medical treatments such as: dentistry; optometry; chiropractry; alternative/ holistic practioners?
While I certainly don't know the complete answer, I believe we should ALL be asking some important questions!
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: @rgbrody (www.twitter.com/rgbrody)
Consulting Website: http://tinyurl.com/rgbcons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)