Should healthcare be a right?
Bill Whittle at Pajamas TV asks and answers the question: "Do we have a right to healthcare?" If you haven't seen PJTV yet, take a look. It is the future of media.
Labels: PJTV
posted by Helen at 1:02 PM
69 Comments:
No offense, but that player has crashed my ASUS computer repeatedly, and has way too many steps to complete in order to see anything.
And no. Health Care is a responsibility.
If healthcare is a right, what about food and housing? What about everything else needed to live life?
Who pays for it? That's the critical question. If everyone has a right to health care, then everyone has the obligation to pay for everyone's health care. Given that the federal and state governments spend several hundred billion dollars a year on Medicare and Medicaid to cover less than 1/3rd of the population, what will it cost to cover everyone? Since Medicare and Medicaid have unfunded liabilities that make Social Security and the current bailouts look like nothing, how can we expect the government has either the funding or the competence to handle health care for everyone.
There are no "rights".
Health care is a commodity; a luxury commodity perhaps, but a commodity none-the-less.
People no more have a 'right' to health care than they have a 'right' to a big-screen TV.
'Smallest Minority' has a good essay on this. In short: "health care" is not a 'right' because it obligates another to provide something...
A right is something that can be protected. You have the right to a free and independent press. You do not have the right to have the government set you up with a print shop and editors.
Do you have a "right" to health care? You could possibly put it that way, the same as you have a "right" to buy a cellphone; but you don't have the right to demand it at someone else's expense.
Great posts PG and Joan.
Healthcare is a responsibility.
But we are hidden from its costs, just like we are hidden from our tax burden. We do not see the money that goes into our healthcare from our employers, like we do not really "see" the money taken out of our checks for taxes. This keeps us from confronting the costs, and without confronting them, how can we count those costs?
I fear that what the "health care is a right" people are REALLY offering is more of something for nothing. If it is a right, then it must be free. Right?
I see this type of attitude all the time in my practice. It usually is a variation of an incompetent mom fighting for custody of children because if she has enough kids in the house she qualifies for a check. Really. The moms actually tell me this.
I had an admitted crack addict mom living in a homeless shelter ask me to help her get her kids back so that she could get a check and housing. Something for nothing.
Someone wise wrote that democracies only last until the people that vote realize that they can just vote themselves money.
That makes me afraid these days.
Trey
Pjohn, a right is also something that people have died in order to get or to keep.
Trey
I'm sure the Supreme Court would rule that we have a right to purchase health care if we need it, but that does not mean the government is required to pay for it.
Using the "rights" logic, the government would be required to buy me the firearms of my choice should I not be able to afford them.
The issue is really about entitlement. Some people believe they are entitled to another person's money, I happen to disagree.
dogwood is close, really close.
We have a right, and absolute right to keep what we have earned. All of it.
We have a right to spend that money on what we want to, which is likely to include what we need.
Some of that may be things like "police services" which we ask for via the ballot and which we agree to pay for through via taxes. And we might want to decide that it makes sense to give the government a monopoly in that business.
Ditto schools.
ditto "health care".
I for one don't think any of those are very good ideas, but I have agreed to live where the folks have spoken, so there we are.
Joan of Argghh!,
Sorry about that. It is best to use Explorer or Safari. The player does not support Linux.
Yes, healthcare should be a right. So should be rent and a mortgage. And also the charge they levy me on Home Depot when I buy a power drill.
Why am I being charged for anything?!
Why isn't everything free?!
There are wealthy people all over the planet. Why don't they pay for EVERYTHING?!!!!!!
And what's all this crap about work? Why am I expected to WORK? I hate it.
Waaaaaa! Waaaaaa!
Life isn't what I wanted it to be.
VOTE OBAMA!
Healthcare cannot be a right because it obligates others (or more specifically, forces them to pay for it, basically enslaving them to the "rights" of others).
If this lame notion were applied to freedom of speech, the government would have to provide us with an auditorium and microphone and require (force) others to listen.
Not according to my copy of the Constitution.
Don't count on freedom of speech as a right either.
The difference between the American Constitution, which is about 20 pages long, and the European Constitution, which is about 400 pages long, is that the former states what the government can and cannot do, whereas the latter states what the people can and cannot do. That's a profound difference.
We are slouching towards socialism.
Sure health care is a right. Just like going out to eat at a fancy restaurant. You can eat anywhere and (nearly) anything you want, as long as you pay for it.
Unfortunately, we've created a welfare class who believes they shouldn't have to pay for anything.
The problem here is the word " right" used in a legal and/or moral sense.
But.. and to avoid a lot of philosophical discussion...
Should everyone in our society have access to basic health care ? Of course.
What kind of society do you want ? That of the priest or the Levite-- or that of the Samaritan ?
I find libertarian /conservaive opposition to universal health care to be basically a front for immoral and self-centered indifference to the suffering of others...
as someone said awhile back-- when you have done it to the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto me...
One could say much more... but health care.. and food.. and shelter... the basic minimums should be available to all...
Who pays-- we all do-- we HAVE to ...
When politicians and other freeloaders use the word "right" they don't mean anything all that complicated.
They mean, very simply stated, that if they want something they should be given it with no charges to them or anybody they know.
They don't care who pays for it--they really don't.
cham, what you linked to isn't a right to free speech issue, it's a right to privacy issue. And there is quite a bit difference between international surveilance (or botched international surveilance)during wartime than stifling free speech. We're not even at war with Canada, but most times I go across the border, both ways, my right to privacy flies out the window and my car gets searched--i'm sure it would be worse if i were communicating with someone from a hostile region.
Interestingly, most laws that outlaw free speech come from the left. Not to mention thinsg like the so-called "fairness doctrine."
I started thi musing at "Classical Values" (I think) where this topic is being discussed.
I am trying to work out what the word "rights" means.
It seems to me that when the topic was hot in the 18th century, there were two characteristics of the things to which the label "right" was attached: The price was not monetary, but had values like "my life"; and, the price would be paid by the recipient.
Now when the socialists and other freeloaders use the term they invariably mean a good or service to which a precise dollars-and-cents price at least in theory could be calculated and that price is to be paid by somebody else, not the recipient.
"My rights" is now synonymous with "I am entitled to at no cost to me".
Helen, since I couldn't find a direct e-mail address for you, I'm sending this URL to you even though it is off the topic of this thread..
http://www.comcast.net/sports/russakoffrules/13112/cheerleadersperformmockexecution/
What do YOU think?
Ted
larry wrote: "They don't care who pays for it--they really don't."
As long as it is not them.
Trey
One thing that is tangential to this topic is the growing resentment I see from taxpayers. I mean the 55% that actually pay taxes.
They are getting pissed. This freeloading shit is getting very old to them. People I would never expect it of are cussing mad. This may lead to the real class war, the war of the producers punishing the takers.
If it happens, it will be ugly, and there will be a racial component. The race part will be horrible and unjustified, but it will happen.
The election is playing right along those lines.
I hope this is just Friday paranoia on my part, but IF Senator Obama loses and people riot they may be shot by rioters from the "other" side.
God help us, I hope I am just paranoid.
Trey
Tmink - I have felt that is going to happen for some time. Paranoid? maybe a little, but just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't after you. :)
Those who feed from the federal trough (taxpayer), will wake up to a harsh reality someday. If the market continues like it is, the government is going to have to figure out where all the funds are going to come from. Because you know that they will not cut services, they will tax those who continue to work, at a higher level to pay for all those who don't.
but IF Senator Obama loses and people riot they may be shot by rioters from the "other" side.
My wife and I have been talking about this point. I grew up in the country around guns all my life. She grew up in Chicago and never even held a gun until we got married 4 years ago. At this point, she can outshoot me. I can guarantee that if rioting occurs (and seeing as we live in the suburbs of chicago), I will be prepared should anyone try anything to my family or property.
Honestly, I think you see paranoid being substituted for prepared by those on the left and in the MSM (not that there is any difference.)
You're right tmink, this election has become racist. But it isn't the Obama supporters being the racists.
Government sponsored health care or government sponsored bank bail-outs, the only difference I can see between the 2 is that the healthcare CEOs haven't given themselves $380 million dollar bonuses or getaways to spas....yet. I can't wait to see what McCain thinks is a good idea next.
"Honestly, I think you see paranoid being substituted for prepared by those on the left and in the MSM (not that there is any difference.)"
I see your point wolfboy. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Stick around! Post more!
Trey
Cham wrote: "But it isn't the Obama supporters being the racists."
I can't agree when 96% of blacks are voting for Senator Obama. Now 90% of blacks vote Democratic usually, but the upswing is statistically significant.
"Government sponsored health care or government sponsored bank bail-outs,"
We totally agree here, same trough, different pigs.
Trey
Larry --
We have a right, and absolute right to keep what we have earned. All of it.
In the abstract, I agree. However, until I see people getting together and donating their time and labor to construct hiways, I'll assume we need some sort of co-ordinating center to do these kinds of things.
lovemelikeareptile --
Should everyone in our society have access to basic health care ? Of course.
And actually, they do. Hospitals can't refuse treatment. Yes, pedantically they can and do, but they can also be sued for it and faces penalties. I know this for fact as my wife and I couldn't afford her spinal treatments and the hospitals ate the bill. Broken backs aren't cheap. Pharmacy companies give her the pain meds monthly.
Interesting thing, though. These hospitals and pharma companies make you go to great lengths to prove you need the services and cannot pay. Hmm. Main difference between them and gov provided health, m'thinks.
cham --
But it isn't the Obama supporters being the racists.
It isn't only the Obama supporters.
I think we can all agree that personal responsibility is a good thing. But consider the following scenario:
Say you get a serious disease, one that requires lengthy and expensive treatment. Said disease makes it impossible for you to work. You lose you job, which means you lose your health insurance. You can't afford to make COBRA payments without an income, other insurance is inaccessible because of your preexisting condition, and medical bills eat up the rest of your savings.
Do you not deserve treatment?
Does your inability to pay for treatment indicate that you have not taken responsibility for your own life?
"However, until I see people getting together and donating their time and labor to construct hiways, I'll assume we need some sort of co-ordinating center to do these kinds of things."
Riddle me this: If lots and lots of people are saying "we have to many people driving" and the government is confiscating people's land and homes to build more highways, malls, parking lots and so on, do we have "co-ordinating"?
"Say you get a serious disease, one that requires lengthy and expensive treatment. Said disease makes it impossible for you to work. You lose you job, which means you lose your health insurance. You can't afford to make COBRA payments without an income, other insurance is inaccessible because of your preexisting condition, and medical bills eat up the rest of your savings."
I worked hard all my life, my wife worked hard all hers. We saved, bought insurance, provided for ourselves.
Now that has pretty much been taken away from us and given to the freeloaders.
We can't get any of the free stuff, because we are part of the "rich".
Cry me a river.
Seems there are two sides, and each side sees it clearly from their point of view. Personally, gimme! doesn't work for me, in the America I know.
There are a lot of blogs blazing with variations on this theme, from almost every angle. As one who considers himself a producer - not as much as some, but certainly more than many - I have a problem with it (takers).
I don't need to recite the headlines, everyone can read. And we know the whole story will not be found anywhere on the MSM. One has to dig and cipher for himself.
So when, then, does it become a conspiracy? When does it transcend paranoia and become anger creating or fear creating fact? I've seen and read enough of ACORN's transgressions that I believe the group should be outlawed as is, and totally revamped. Perhaps just disbanded altogether.
Healthcare is a tuffy. I sit in the middle of a real life situation similar to what cinderkeys wrote about above, except I am on my third serious situation just for me, and one continuing one for my ex. When young, I never went to a doctor, had no need. Until my upper twenties, I didn't even carry health insurance. I was invincible, you see. In the past 12 years, doctor and hospital bills have been insane. Even with full health insurance I am staring well into six figures still, and spent my entire savings on myself and another family member. No way out.
I don't know where the answer lies for some. I pay my own way, and I fight poverty - I work. (Humor!) But retirement is not an option any more. If I even live to see retirement age.
You know, health care has always been some sort of problem, or employers would not have been forced to provide health care for employees. I don't know what kind of financial shape I would be in without insurance through my employer(s). I'm in bad enough shape WITH health insurance.
First we need clarity of the question.
Do we need "Health Care"? Yes. Silly question.
Do we need "Universal Health Care"? Not clear what that means, but let us suppose it means "Health Care available to every body"? Yes. Another silly question.
Do we mean "Health Care that somebody else pays for"? Good question, not so easy to answer.
And it provides a clue as to what the real Question: Do we need to force everybody to becovered by a government mandated, taxpayer funded health care "insurance" policy?
Turns out there are statistics available (I'm too lazy to look them up) that show that right now today nearly everybody either has the health care insurance they want to pay for, has declined such insurance, or is covered by a spouses insurance.
So what is left? Some tough corner cases, and not all of them get taken care-of as well as we would like.
And we should try to do better with local programs, charity programs and I'm not sure what (I notice here that the hospitals all have signs announcing that everybody is entitled to the care they need and nobody will be turned away. I don't know for sure what that means.).
But that sounds a long way from "Universal" anything.
larry --
Riddle me this, if someone points out some problems that may occur with "coordinating", does that negate the concept of coordination altogether?
Yes, if by "coordinating" you mean force of government being used to impose an outcome not wanted by the governed.
I do not believe government is likely to do better than private folks.
It is likely that the word "coordinating" has no place in this discussion.
The only time the word would have any applicability is in a situation like we have (had) here, where hospitals coordinated to keep one hospital being taken out of the picture by an overload.
larry --
Yes, if by "coordinating" ...
Since that's not what happened, it's not what I mean.
To compare, one need only watch a documentary on the building of the hiways in the US. They did a far better job than private folk did who basically did nothing.
Nope. The word is fine in this context.
About racists...it is Obama himself, since day one, who has been playing the race card. Not a word was said, he just threw that stuff out there.
The road was paved and everyone was lead to it. It has worked. But the only ones who have brought it up, and have been harping about it are indeed those who would have him in the oval office.
My concerns are his capability, record in government service, and affiliations with those with whom I disagree. I don't want that package in the White House. Period.
Where has Barack Obama played the race card?
@cham
I don't think Obama or McCain either one has played the race card during the election. What I've seen is some Obama supporters arguing that if he loses it will be racism or there may be some rioting--but those stupid comments aren't Obama's fault.
Obama's biggest race problem lies not in his race, but in his association with a racist pastor. It bother's me that democrats don't seem to care about that though--if it were McCain that sat in the church of a white supremecist pastor for 20 years, it would be considered an issue, and rightly so. I don't think Obama is a racist, though, but I am bothered that he gave stature to a racist pastor as a sitting US Senator sitting in his pews.
Where has Barrack Obama played the race card? How about when he said that his opposition would be saying that he doesn't look like the presidents on the money?
I am not the only person to state that Obama has played the race card. Alice Miles is a British journalist who wrote: "What a shame that a contest that has the world gripped, that is transforming international opinion of the United States, that has shown America in its best and most brilliant light, threatens to descend into a pathetic slanging match over race. What a shame for the centre Left, which had everything to cheer about in the stunning choice between, potentially, the first female and the first black president, that they are allowing the contest to slip into an idiotic series of unproven claims about racial bias."
As for his supporters, I see race shit three times a week from his supporters on even Comcast! That is too easy to find.
Trey
1.oligonicella
A. So hospitals cannot refuse treatment ?
They do it routinally, through many mechanisms, the "not- for-profits" and even so-called "charity hospitals". They erect the highest barriers possible to keep from treating the indigent, the uninsured, and the underinsured ( even just Medicare)... sometimes they have to treat "these people" , but they try as hard as possible not to.
Try an experiment-- call a hospital and try to arrange seeing a doctor or surgery... and tell them you have no insurance...or have inadequate insurance . You find yourself on a " Call Back" list... and the call back never comes. Try it at different public , not-for-profit hospitals--- Its so stereotyped its laughable.
The hospitals or clinics associated with medical schools are particularly egregious.
Health care delivery is a big bucks business-- and the bottom line rules.
B. Sued for it ?
A remedy that even if it exists obviously isn't timely or useful. And that route doesn't exist for the people who are denied care, who obviously cannot afford legal help.
Lawyers are entrepeneurs and are uninterested in such cases unless it is grossly egregious and attracts media attention, ensuring a big pay-off and face time on TV for the lawyer.
The law is irrelevant most of the time-- people's legal rights are violated all the time... and no real remedy exists... because getting the miscreants into court is almost always impossible.
--
2.
People don't need to meet a moral standard to qualify for basic health care-- they should have access simply and solely because they are humans and have legitimate health care needs.
Our 21 st century society should dedicate itself to that goal-- it is hard to imagine a more important task.
WARNING SOAPBOX
Of course, a great deal of money could be saved by insurance companies and the government ceasing to pay for " mental health care providers"-- now that is a scam that is truly disgraceful. ( addressing outpatients here)
Psychotherapy has been shown to be snake oil for over 40 years and still insurance companies are paying for this crap. Psychotherapy has very limited uses-- mainly supportive, for reasonably well-put together folks in a time-limited crisis. And then training and experience are irrelevant. ( B. Zilbergeld's 1983 "The Shrinking Of America" provides a popular discussion-- by a therapist whyo debunked Masters and Johnson's absurd claims)
Psychiatry is another shameless con job-- you need drug treatment for any mental health issue-- go to your GP. He has as much knowledge as any psychiatrist ( ie, none-- its all trial and error and the present medications are very limited in effectiveness)-- and you avoid the stigma and the psychiatric denunciation ( Goffman, Asylums, 1961) of yourself as a person that is involved in seeing a person who has to characterize you as defective to get paid, with few objective standards.
Saying no to clinical psychologists and psychiatrists-- beyond clearly defined and delimited roles---- and opting for short-term counselors in defined roles would save the money we need to assure everyone basic health care.
We could save billions by stopping the "mental health care" gravytrain for outpatients.
Caveat-- " mental illness" clearly has a genetic and neural basis and will yield to the medical model and the disease concept -- -- in about 300 years. Presently, psychiatry is not a field of medicine.
lovemelikeareptile - I think you just opened a can of worms....Dr. Helen and Trey are going to have a field day with that one.
Dr. Helen/Trey - be gentle.
A lot of the psychological tests and techniques have been shown to be pretty much useless in terms of prediction and healing WHEN objective tests have been done (and psychologists aren't very keen on testing reality). The Rorschach test is one test that is verifiably BS.
Tests have also been done on patients with depression, with one group undergoing psychoanalysis and another group simply living (without psychoanalysis).
Psychology is definitely not a science, and some (*some*, not all) of its practitioners have very little interest in what really works and what doesn't.
2nd comment (unrelated to the point above, but related to health care costs):
Physicians in the US earn more than they are worth. In most continental European countries, doctors are paid as very well educated professionals. In the US, it goes beyond that. The worship of Americans for doctors as Gods or near Gods (although physicians are not Gods, they are educated professionals) leads to two problems:
1. Malpractice is much worse because some people blindly put their trust in doctors and doctors themselves start believing they are Gods.
2. Physicians excessive earnings are obviously a major cost of excessive health care premiums.
The other major cause of excessive health care premiums: Non-physician "administrators" (by the hundreds) running around in medical bureaucracies. Many earn well over a hundred thousand a year without much "administratin' " to show for it.
I think decent healthcare SHOULD be a right, but since we live in a capitalist society, I know it's NEVER going to happen here. If I want universal healthcare, my only choice is to move to Canada or the UK.
You either live in a capitalist society, or you don't. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Any economist will tell you that.
You mean decent health care that somebody else pays for.
I have decent health care, but I paid for it for 50 or so years.
Actually, I hope quite a bit more is made a "right" - like cable TV and Internet access, a nice house, enough food and wine.
The "work" thing is OK for regular people, but I'm a bit finer than most and prefer not to work. I shouldn't have to be out in the work world with grubby people who are worth less than me, so I would welcome my rightful share of the pie in the form of rights.
No, at least not until the public stops feeling that the have a right to a guaranteed outcome when undergoing a medical proceedure.
This makes me wish there was a cross-topic comment...
This one is the closest.
Why we don't want any more bureaucrats in charge of "health care".
http://thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-have-my-very-own-fleet-of-roombas.html
My point is that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. Universal healthcare will NEVER happen here, so the question is meaningless.
We have Universal Health Care now.
What we don't have is somebody else always pays for it health care.
Here are a couple of articles--see if you can find any connection:
http://thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com/2008/10/hospital-sues-patient.html
http://thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com/2008/10/you-have-now-entered-entitlement-zone.html
http://thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com/2008/10/hospital-junkie.html
OK, so I can't count very well.
Sue me.
I'd say no, health care is not a right. I'd agree with these people: http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/index.html
That link takes you to a well-written blog of articles, LTE's, op-eds and commentary.
There are some articles regarding health care that are linked to on their site, as well:
http://tinyurl.com/25zffu
http://tinyurl.com/42xgey
http://tinyurl.com/2hwwd3
I think the Founding Fathers were deliberate in saying we have the right to the "pursuit" of happiness. Achieving happiness or being "given" happiness is not a right.
The "right to health care" can mean nothing else than the "right" to force other people to provide for you and to be ready to care for your emergency injuries at a moment's notice.
But the "right" to force other people to take care of you would mean nothing else than the right to slavery -- a contradiction in terms.
Like it or not we are always going to have people who are unable to pay for their healthcare.
Some of them will be unable to pay for reasons that you find acceptable and some of them for ones that you do not, but it is a mistake not to try and help them.
That is why we have charities and the dole.
It is not a good solution.
Do you not deserve treatment?
No, you don't, because that makes the payor your slave. What's stopping you from asking for charity?
The fact that a "right", as progressives define it, effectively enslaves the people who pay for it, makes it rather astonishing to me that any black American would support such a thing. Apparently slavery per se isn't reprehensible.
jg said - The other major cause of excessive health care premiums: Non-physician "administrators" (by the hundreds) running around in medical bureaucracies. Many earn well over a hundred thousand a year without much "administratin' " to show for it.
I think you left out one major factor - all of the sue happy people and attorneys that feed it. When most doctors have to pay more in a year for malpractice insurance than I make salary....there is something seriously wrong.
And you have NO right to healthcare at someone else's expense. Like others have said here, that is slavery. Correct me if i'm wrong but the 13th Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear on this:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Is it slavery, then, when we pay taxes to build and maintain the roads we use?
Is it slavery when we pay taxes to maintain a police force?
Yes, if the taxes are imposed without our representation.
Duh
If those taxes are imposed without our representation, then that is a great injustice. It is not slavery, however.
And as far as I'm aware, representation still exists.
Explain to me please how taking my money and giving it to somebody so they can get a "medical procedure" that results in a dead child, when I am opposed to killing children is the same as hiring a police officer to prevent that same person form killing a child.
And explain how setting all this up in a DC bureaucracy that I can't even find, much less exercise any control over is the same as paying county taxes to get as road paved.
Healthcare is either a public service or a business. That's the only way to look at it. In America, it's a business. In the social-democratic countries, it's a public service. Two different ways of thinking.
In america, we accept that healthcare is a business just by virtue of agreeing to live here - and we pay up for it. In the Scandinavian countries, healthcare is a public service and they have stellar public transportation, but you pay upwards of 60% of your paycheck in taxes. Both systems have their benefits and drawbacks. But at bottom, it's a business decision. I accept that healthcare is a business because I CHOOSE to live here, and that's my business decision. If I wanted it the other way, I would move.
Whether or not people have a RIGHT to it is almost immaterial.
Larry:
If you assume that universal access to healthcare is going to automatically result in free abortion on demand, you have wildly overestimated the power liberals have in this country. We can't even seem to get stem cell research off the ground here because of the abortion issue, and stem cell research is done on unused frozen embryos that would otherwise be tossed into the nearest waste receptacle.
More to the point: it's entirely possible to give poor people access to medical services without giving all the services away for free. We can say, yes, you can have that lifesaving emergency appendectomy, but no, you cannot have LASIK.
Metalover30:
I agree with most of what you're saying here. I disagree with the part about geology being destiny. If you live in a Scandinavian country and want healthcare to operate more like a business, you're entitled to try to change the system, see if you can get enough people to agree with you. You can also move somewhere else, but you have the right to try to make things better where you are.
Since slavery has come up, let's use that as an example. Should all the white abolitionists have decided to move to England rather than abolish slavery in the U.S.?
Being somewhat conservative in all that I do, I do not assume anything.
I look only at the hard evidence.
All of the rhetoric in these comments all stem from the economy: aka money. The economy of our country is only the system by which money is made. Money for us. The money that is made is to enhance our lives, drive our ideals forward. But we must remember that we work for our ideals, not for the economy. The economy works for us, not vice versa. If your ideals are only to advance the economy, you have missed the point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
☆♀ 辣妹視訊聊天 ☆♀☆♀ 一夜情影音交友 ☆♀☆♀ 一夜情影音交友 ☆♀☆♀ 情色成人影片 ☆♀淫蕩天使情色網☆♀ 情色成人影片 ☆♀★外公外婆聊天室★☆♀ 成人電影下載 ☆♀春夫人視訊情人網☆♀ skype網愛 ☆♀☆♀ 夜未眠成人影城 ☆♀免費成人論壇ut影音視訊聊天室☆♀ 成人哈啦聊天室 ☆♀★網路視訊聊天室★ut聊天室聊天室火辣美女☆♀ 激情網愛聊天 ☆♀ 台北聊坊聊天室台灣論壇情色文學s383情人視訊男女網愛聊天室ut影音視訊聊天室火辣美女色情聊天室☆♀ 火辣美媚 ☆♀☆♀ 影音交友 ☆♀☆♀ 網愛俱樂部 ☆♀色情豆豆聊天室JP成人論壇網愛成人聊天室☆♀ 成人電影下載 ☆♀火辣美女免費視訊辣妹脫衣秀☆♀ 情色影片下載 ☆♀☆♀ 一夜激情交友聊天室 ☆♀★影音視訊聊天情人網★真人視訊影音聊天☆♀ av女優影片 ☆♀☆♀ 網路視訊聊天 ☆♀色情視訊聊天室☆♀ 080辣妹聊天室 ☆♀ 成人視訊交友天地網友一夜情聊天室色情聊天室☆♀ 一夜情影音交友 ☆♀痘痘聊天室☆♀ 成人電影下載 ☆♀★視訊聊天交友★☆♀ 影音交友 ☆♀☆♀ 網愛俱樂部 ☆♀火辣美女☆♀ 辣妹視訊聊天 ☆♀一夜激情網愛聊天室★一夜激情影音聊天室★☆♀ 視訊聊天辣妹 ☆♀☆♀ 免費網友自拍影片 ☆♀豆豆聊天激情網愛聊天☆♀ 網愛bbs ☆♀ 網愛成人聊天室JP成人影城☆♀ 情色影片下載 ☆♀激情網愛聊天學生族視訊★視訊聊天交友★日本av女優影片☆♀ 火辣美媚 ☆♀優質辣妹影音視訊聊天室☆♀ 情色電影院☆♀偷窺自拍貼圖片區sex520免費影片☆♀ 情色成人影片 ☆♀成人視訊聊天ut聊天室聊天室激情辣妹聊天室☆♀ 辣妹視訊聊天 ☆♀即時視訊聊天火辣美女123上班族聊天室火辣美女★視訊聊天交友★網愛成人聊天室★辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室★☆♀ 080辣妹聊天室 ☆♀ ☆♀ skype網愛 ☆♀☆♀ 一夜情影音交友 ☆♀☆♀ 辣妹視訊聊天 ☆♀★一夜激情影音聊天室★★網路視訊聊天室★夜激情成人聊天室☆♀ 情色影片下載 ☆♀☆♀ 網愛俱樂部 ☆♀☆♀ 美女視訊聊天 ☆♀情色影音聊天網愛成人聊天室我愛78論壇成人愛情交易所★台北一夜激情聊天室★☆♀ 情色影片下載 ☆♀女學生情色視訊聊天室☆♀ 成人哈啦聊天室 ☆♀dodo成人聊天室優質浪女視訊聊天室☆♀ 情色視訊聊天 ☆♀★台北一夜激情聊天室★☆♀ 激情網愛聊天 ☆♀ 愛情花園聊天室☆♀ 火辣美媚 ☆♀★網路視訊聊天室★★影音視訊聊天情人網★網愛成人聊天室☆♀ 成人影片 ☆♀一夜激情網愛聊天室ut聊天室聊天室聊天室入口 yam情色影音聊天豆豆成人聊天室色情聊天室☆♀ 情色視訊聊天 ☆♀辣妹成人視訊聊天室☆♀ 080辣妹聊天室 ☆♀ ☆♀ 網愛bbs ☆♀ ☆♀ 火辣美媚 ☆♀水都情色論壇月光情色論壇辣妹影音視訊聊天室★視訊聊天交友★☆♀ 限制級影片 ☆0204情愛視訊聊天網真人視訊影音聊天線上交友網
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
豆豆聊天室男同志聊天室0800a片網080苗栗人聊天室080苗栗人聊天室女同志聊天室sex女優王國080中部人聊天室ut視訊聊天聊天室ut尋夢園聊天聯盟聊天同志聊天室a片卡通ut影音視訊聊天室13077ut女同聊天室免費視訊聊天上班族聊天室免費線上成人影片新浪辣妹視訊
Post a Comment
<< Home