Barack Pinocchio Obama...

[Lord Jim]

Well, I know that everyone will be just as surprised as I was to learn that rube was not being honest about these numbers (which even taken at face value are nothing to write home about; if you extrapolate the number stated that have signed up for the exchanges, and even assume 100% enrollment and payment, you still wind up about 4 million shy of the seven million needed to sign up by March 31st.) .

When I go to the link all I see on the spread sheet are a bunch of columns that don't extend to the totals columns. But when I click on the alternate link that the folks who put this together helpfully provide at the top of the page, I am then able to see the whole thing.

When you scroll over to the totals columns you will find that for two states, the two largest, the "exchange sign up" numbers are shaded orange. The states and the numbers:

California: 227,002
New York: 176,283

If you scroll down you will see a disclaimer, also shaded in orange which tells you what that shading means:

(a significant # of these may belong in the Medicaid column)

So I pull out my trusty calculator and that totals up to 403,285...

Which means that the actual number who have signed up for the paid programs is "significantly" lower than the 513,625 reported, even by the admission of the folks who compiled this data...

How very odd of rube not to make mention of this; he's usually such a stickler for factual accuracy...

[Lord Jim]

I'd like to also make clear what my personal position about this whole Obamacare deal is:

I was opposed to the legislation; and I would never have voted for it. Principally because I felt that the final bill was largely a giveaway to the insurance companies and also did nothing to address the primary underlying problem with the US healthcare system; the spiraling cost. I would actually have preferred that a public option be included, because it's my belief that a public option would have increased competition, which in turn would have created a downward pressure on insurance costs. I said so at the time.

I was not opposed to it because I am ideologically opposed to the concept of universal healthcare. I also have never been obsessed about Obamacare, and I was adamant in my opposition to shutting down the government over it. Here's what I said in September:

I have no idea, (I don't believe anyone does) what the actual impacts and effects of Obamacare will be, (wildly divergent claims and predictions have been made on both sides) but at this point it seems to me we're now going to have a national laboratory (one of the nice things that our federal system provides) to test this, and find out who's claims are correct...

Let me also say that at this point, despite my initial opposition and skepticism about Obamacare, at this point I would prefer that it not completely implode, and that the most dire predictions not turn out to be true. In addition to the severe economic pain this would cause the public, it could also re-invigorate the Tea Partiers, and I think I've made pretty clear what I think of them.

However, as the Santa Cruz Pseudo Scientist is so fond of saying "facts are facts" and all the initial facts as this is beginning to unfold all bode very ill...

The most important numbers in all of this are 7 million, and 2.7 million. These are the numbers, that by the Administration's own admission, (7 million total paid sign ups, of which 2.7 are young healthy people) which must be met by the end of the open enrollment period (March 31st) in order to make the other two primary promises (in addition to the "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" pledge, which is now, to borrow a term from Ron Zeigler, "inoperative" ) this was sold on true. The promise that people would now have better coverage at the same or even lower rates, and that Obamacare would actually represent a savings to the Federal government.

All the available evidence to date shows that hitting those essential numbers in the time available is going to be a monumental task, made all the more monumental by the website clusterfuck. And every day that goes by where the numbers aren't met needed to get to those totals is a day that makes achieving them that much tougher. (Whether you love Obamacare, hate Obamacare, or are indifferent to Obamacare, these are facts.)

And if this is not achieved, it will create a cascade effect sending premiums skyrocketing and blowing a huge whole in the budget effect projections. (And then of course we have the employer mandates kicking in, and who knows what nasty box of surprises await us then)

Another basic problem here is that in order for Obamacare to have any chance of performing as advertised there has to be a basic public perception that it will work, (particularly among younger people). And the rollout debacle, followed by millions of people being knocked off their health insurance plans despite the President's repeated promises to the contrary, and the ongoing sign up rates running far below what's needed, certainly aren't helping in this regard.

Anyone who is a strong supporter of Obamacare and really wants it to be a success ought to be worried as hell right now...

Not playing Little Susie Sunshine and whistling past the graveyard like our good buddy rube...(Rube's attitude reminds me of that scene near the end of Animal House, where Kevin Bacon's character is standing in the middle of the side walk amidst complete pandemonium yelling "All is well!"...)

The bottom line is this:

If at the end of the day, if all that Obamacare achieves is getting a lot of folks signed up for expanded Medicaid who previously had no insurance (and let me stipulate, that taken in isolation, providing healthcare for those who cannot afford it, is a good thing) at the cost of screwing over just about everyone else and tanking the economy, there will be an enormous political price to pay.

And while the bulk of that price will fall directly on the Democrats, it will also be borne by my party in the form of a re-vitalized Tea Party (at precisely the time when their influence finally seems threatened) which I believe would be disastrous both for the GOP and for the country for reasons that go far beyond Obamacare. (So I am actually a person who reluctantly hopes it does not work out this way. I am not "rooting" for the failure of Obamacare.)

But if it does, instead of being his great signature achievement, The Affordable Healthcare Act will be Obama's Iraq War....

[Lord Jim]

I think as a public service to the board, if rube insists on continuing to publish his misleading updates, I will follow his posts with updated numbers for those states which the spread sheet compilers say there are a significant number included as paid sign ups that may very well actually belong in the Medicaid column.

I'm sure you'd do this yourself rube, since I know you would never want to be deliberately misleading, if you had the time. But you're a very busy man with a very important job, so I'll do you a solid and do it for you...

No need to thank me...

[rubato]

Expanding medicaid will cost the federal government money, true, but far less than the Bush tax cuts which cost $290B / yr by 2004. In fact providing care will cost only 1/3 as much as making the rich richer. (hey, thanks!) :

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wor ... 384_es.pdf
1
00
Executive Summary
A central goal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to significantly reduce the number
of uninsured by providing a continuum of affordable coverage options through Medicaid and new Health
Insurance Exchanges. Following the June 2012 Supreme Court decision, states face a decision about
whether to adopt the Medicaid expansion. These decisions will have enormous consequences for health
coverage for the low-income population. This analysis uses the Urban Institute
’
s Health Insurance Policy
Simulation Model (HIPSM) to provide national as well as state-
by
-state estimates of the impact of the ACA
on federal and state Medicaid costs, Medicaid enrollment, and the number of uninsured. The analysis
shows that the impact of the ACA Medicaid expansion will vary across states based on current coverage
levels and the number of uninsured. It also shows that by implementing the Medicaid expansion with other
provisions of the ACA, states could significantly reduce the number of uninsured. Overall state costs of
implementing the Medicaid expansion would be modest compared to increases in federal funds, and many
states are likely to see small net budget gains.
If all states implement the ACA Medicaid expansion, the federal government will fund the vast majority
of increased Medicaid costs.
The Medicaid expansion and other provisions of the ACA would lead state
Medicaid spending to increase by $76 billion over 2013-2022 (an increase of less than 3%), while federal
Medicaid spending would increase by $952 billion (a 26% increase). Some states will reduce their own
Medicaid spending as they transition already covered populations to the ACA expansion. States with the
largest coverage gains will see relatively small increases in their own spending compared to increases in
federal funds.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0

projected deficit for 2004 $477Billion


http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:2rHz ... n&ie=UTF-8

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

Cost of Bush tax cuts per year:

Calendar year: … 2001 ……… 2002 ……….. 2003 ……….. 2004

Total cost: ……… -59.3 …….. -140.1 ……… -256.7 ……… -293.0 (billions)

Average Tax Cuts under the 2001-2003 Bush Tax Cuts.
………………….Dollar value ….. % of total
Year: 2004
lowest 20% ……… $ -91 ………… 0.9%
Second 20% …….. -460 ………… 4.6%
Middle 20% ……. -863 ………… 8.7
Fourth 20% …….. -1,544 ………. 15.5
Next 15% ………. -3,375 ………. 25.4%
Next 4% ………… -7,439 ………. 15.0%
Top 1% …………. -59,292 ……… 29.8%

Bottom 60% ……………………… 14.2%
Bottom 80% ……………………… 29.7%
Top 20% …………………………. 70.2%
Top 5% ……………………………44.8%

Year: 2003
…………………. Range ……………….... Average
lowest 20% …… less than $16,000 ………… $9,800
Second 20% …….. $16,000 - 28,000 ……… 21,400
Middle 20% ……. $28,000 - 45,000 ………. 35,300
Fourth 20% …….. $45,000 - 73,000 ………. 57,400
Next 15% ………. $73,000 - 145,000 ………. 97,500
Next 4% ………… $145,000 - 337,000 …….. 200,000
Top 1% …………. $337,000 or more ……… 938,000

Much of the cost will just be cost-shifting and a great deal will be cost savings as fewer people are driven into poverty and on the dole by health misadventures and fewer people are disabled by strokes and amputations from untreated chronic diseases and fewer people are killed by treatable HBP or cancer leaving fewer single-parent families or orphans. And fewer people have to say "gosh I hope Mom dies fast because we'll lose the house if she doesn't (and she'll still be dead).

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

making the rich richer. (hey, thanks!)

Aw, gee whiz rube, and you were doing so well avoiding that kind of thing...

Please tell your wife I said "you're welcome"....

(It's been months since you've tried to pull this; I thought we'd reached a sort of unspoken agreement..I've kept up my end...I'm disappointed..: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9826&p=123896&hilit ... fe#p123896)

[Lord Jim]

If at the end of the day, if all that Obamacare achieves is getting a lot of folks signed up for expanded Medicaid who previously had no insurance (and let me stipulate, that taken in isolation, providing healthcare for those who cannot afford it, is a good thing) at the cost of screwing over just about everyone else and tanking the economy, there will be an enormous political price to pay.

Trust me on this one:

The percentage of the American electorate that will say:

"Well, I don't care if my heath insurance premiums have been doubled, or I lose my job because my company won't keep me on the payroll because they can't meet the new AHC mandates; that's fine with me...

"So long as I now know that people poorer then myself will get preventive care for free, I'm good with that; it was worth the sacrifice..."

Is a very slender percentage indeed...

This was sold as a plan that would help "the least among us" while not hurting anyone else...in fact, "helping" everyone else...

If that turns out not to be true, there will be political Holy Hell to pay...

[dgs49]

"Political distractions aside, the fact remains that most Americans will be better off thanks to the Affordable Care Act than they were before it."

Let's see now, my wife and I will be paying more, and have dramatically higher deductibles, but now have coverage for maternity, drug counseling, and other goodies that we do not now, and never will, need.

And I suspect our situation is quite like the other 85% of Americans who had satisfactory insurance coverage before this debacle was launched.

Do tell. How are we (they) "better off"? If you are forced to pay for something you don't want or need - but get it - are you better off?

Better than what? Certainly not the status quo ante.

SOME people will be better off. It's a typical Democrat boondoggle. (a) 5% are helped, (b) 95% pay for it, (c) we all lose a bit of our freedom, and (d) Government gets bigger.

Yes. "We" are definitely better off.

[Big RR]

Dave--did you really not have coverage for those things before? I have gotten employer group coverage for many years and never recall getting a policy that didn't include maternity benefits or drug rehab. Indeed, I seriously wonder if employers could offer plans excluding maternity coverage as it could be used as evidence that they discriminate against hiring people of childbearing age. Most employer group policies have very little excluded, and my last one even covered Christian scientist healers (or whatever the term is) although I know I never would go to one of them. Are you obtaining coverage on your own or using your employer's group?

[Lord Jim]

Obama finally, (kinda sorta) apologizes:

President Obama said in an interview on Thursday that he’s sorry a number of Americans are being forced to change their health care plans despite previous assurances the Affordable Care Act would allow them to keep their existing plans.

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," Obama told Chuck Todd during an interview with NBC News at the White House.

"We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this."

Obama’s admission represents the latest evolution on the issue dating back to before the Affordable Care Act was even signed into law in 2010. Up through September of this year, Obama was adamant that the Affordable Care Act would not impact Americans who already had their own health insurance.

"If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything,” Obama said in a speech on September 25th speech in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

But already 3.5 million Americans have had their healthcare plans cancelled, according to the Associated Press. Most of these are individuals who purchased plans directly from insurers, rather than through a workplace. The reason for the cancellations: their plans changed since the signing of the new healthcare law. While Obama was promising that you could keep your plan if you purchased it prior to the signing of the law on March 23, 2010, what he didn't say was that if a provider changed the plan its grandfather status would become void.

Since individual plans change frequently, the chances of individuals being able to keep their plans was always low. In fact, buried in Obamacare regulations dating back to 2010 is a Health and Human Services estimate that 40 to 67 percent of individual plan owners would lose that coverage because of normal turnover in the individual market.

About 80 percent of Americans with health insurance are covered through their employers or a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid. Conservative estimates now project the majority of those 5 percent of Americans who buy their own plans (about 14 million people) will likely have to make some kind of adjustment, sometimes at a higher cost.

The White House and administration surrogates have tried to mitigate criticism by contending some of those individuals will actually end up with cheaper and better plans. Nonetheless, Obama’s failure to include the "grandfather" clause in his if-you-like-it-you-can-keep-it speeches has turned into a growing controversy.

After the law went into effect in October, early reports began to emerge that Americans who buy their own insurance were starting to get letters from insurance companies informing them that their current plans were being cancelled and that they would need to replace their coverage in order to be in compliance with the Affordable Care Act.

White House officials continued to insist that Obama did not “lie” to the American public about the issue. However, throughout October, the administration’s stance continued to evolve.

“What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage," White House Spokesman Jay Carney said on October 28th. “So it's true that there are existing health care plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act."

After four years of sticking to his "if-you-like-your-coverage" promise, Obama recalibrated on Oct. 30. "Ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you've got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning," he explained.

Just over a week later, that recalibration has become an apology.

Here is a timeline, compiled by The Washington Post, showing how Obama has addressed the “if you like your plan” promise over the past four years:

• June 15, 2009, in a speech to the American Medical Association:

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

• March 19, 2010, in a speech at George Mason University four days before the ACA became law:

“If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.”

• October 4, 2012, during the first presidential debate with Mitt Romney:

“Number one, if you've got health insurance it doesn't mean a Government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around.

• September 25, 2013, during a speech in Prince George’s County, Maryland:

“Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance -– either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you – especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything.”

Well, at least he has stopped claiming that he never said what he said, and I suppose that's progress...

Now Mr. President you have the opportunity to show that you want to do something about it, by endorsing this:

Amid controversy over whether the Affordable Care Act lives up to President Obama's promise to let people keep the health insurance they have, the Republican-led House next week plans to vote on a bill that would aim to resolve the issue.

The bill, called the "Keep Your Health Plan Act," was introduced by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and has 88 co-sponsors in the House. [that has grown to 150] It would allow plans that existed on the individual market as of Jan. 1, 2013 to stay in effect through 2014.

In a USA Today op-ed, Upton called the bill "a simple, sensible solution that would allow health plans being offered today to continue into next year."

The Affordable Care Act "grandfathered in" plans that existed before the law was passed in 2010, but millions of Americans are now being dropped from those plans because they were changed after the law passed. As Mr. Obama has explained, once an insurer decided to change a plan in question, the insurer had to replace it "with quality, comprehensive coverage."

Those who are dropped from their old plans can either get new plan from their insurer or shop for one on the new, online Obamacare marketplace. Most Americans are required under the Affordable Care Act to have some type of health coverage by 2014. They have until the end of March to sign up before they would be hit with a fine by the IRS.

There's some concern that people who are being dropped from their plans now won't have time to sign up for a new one before 2014, particularly since the Obamacare website HealthCare.gov has been glitchy. Upton's bill, even though it would only extend existing plans for another year, would at least gives those individuals more time to check out the new marketplace.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-576 ... -plan-act/

Even without White House support, the bill is going to attract substantial Democratic support.

Obama and the Democratic political leadership have been claiming all along that they would welcome GOP proposals on Obamacare that were designed to fix problems with the law, not abolish it. Well here's a chance for them to put their money where their mouth has been.

[rubato]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/11/i ... -2013.html

If Only Medicaid Expansion Were a $30 Billion Defense Program...: The View from the Roasterie XXIX: November 8, 2013

It is indeed amazing. If the federal government wanted to spend $30 billion/year in red states for any other purpose (save registering eligible voters) the Republican governors and the legislatures of those states would be straining every nerve to get their share and more than their share.

But it it is to provide health insurance to poor people? To let the doctors and hospitals stop the game of three-card-monte by which they cross-subsidize to gain the resources to (inadequately) treat the uninsured?

Nope. No way.

Let me turn the microphone over to Dylan Scott of TalKing Points Memo:

The 5 Million People The GOP Cut Out Of Obamacare: The Medicaid expansion field is tentatively set for 2014, and the nation is split down the middle: 25 states (plus D.C.) are expanding, and 25 states are not, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Ohio became the 25th state to join the expansion last month, and more states could still sign onto it. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) has proposed an alternate form of expansion that would require federal approval, and Terry McAuliffe's election this week as Virginia's next governor increases the likelihood that his state will eventually expand the program. New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) has called a special legislative session this month to try to hammer out an expansion deal in her state.

But for now, according to the foundation, 4.8 million Americans won't be covered as the law intended in those non-expanding states. They don't qualify for Medicaid now, but would have under the expansion, and they don't make enough money to qualify for financial help to buy private coverage. They're Obamacare's other losers, while media coverage focuses on those people whose individual policies are being canceled under the law.

A quick reminder of how this happened: Obamacare was written with the intention that every state would expand Medicaid, the low-income public insurance program, to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The expansion would have accounted for about half of the people who would get covered under the law (17 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office). Many of the newly eligible people would have been childless adults who currently aren't eligible for the program in most states.

It was supposed to be a good deal for states, too: the federal government would cover 100 percent of the costs for the first three years and never less than 90 percent after that.

But then in June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, while Obamacare would stand, states would have a choice about whether or not they would expand Medicaid. Since then, half the states, all of them with either a Republican governor or a GOP-controlled chamber in the legislature (or both) that opposed the change, have declined to participate.

The other thing to consider is that it's the poorest people who make up those 4.8 million who are missing out. Because of a kink in the law's language, people between 100 and 133 percent of the poverty level will still be eligible to receive financial help to purchase private coverage on the insurance marketplaces that opened Oct. 1.

But those actually in poverty will be out of luck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/healt ... .html?_r=0

Front page, todays N Y Times
Cuts in Hospital Subsidies Threaten Safety-Net Care

By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: November 8, 2013

SAVANNAH, Ga. — The uninsured pour into ..the.. hospital here: the waitress with cancer in her voice box who for two years assumed she just had a sore throat. The unemployed diabetic with a wound stretching the length of her shin. The construction worker who could no longer breathe on his own after weeks of untreated asthma attacks and had to be put on a respirator.

Dr. Guy Petruzzelli at Memorial.. in Savannah, Ga...provides care for many patients who fail what Dr. Petruzzelli calls “the wallet biopsy.”

Many of these patients were expected to gain health coverage under the Affordable Care Act through a major expansion of Medicaid.
After the SCOTUS decision,GA like about half the states, almost all of them Republican-led, refused to broaden the program.

Now, in a perverse twist, many of the poor people who rely on safety-net hospitals like Memorial will be doubly unlucky. A government subsidy, little known outside health policy circles but critical to the hospitals’ survival, is being sharply reduced under the new health law.

Cancer care may be among the services reduced... Memorial is now one of only a few hospitals in the state with a tumor clinic that accepts poor patients without insurance. Many show up coughing blood or having trouble breathing because their cancers have gone untreated for so long.

The Times goes on to note that many, if not most of these people work in low pay jobs like food and hotels.

Intellectuals criticizing the Times is a bit like Teenagers and sex: each generation thinks it has discovered something unkown to their elders.

The Times is what it is.

Whose nose is growing?

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well I have to say that Lynn and I are considering moving back to the USA in May next year - kids, grandkids and so on. Many reasons. And I spent a happy couple of hours yesterday on the website enrolling so I can look at the available plans. And from our perspective, it looks quite good. 5 years ago I was paying almost $800 a month for my plan and Lynn was paying $200 towards her group plan. Now it looks as if we can get something for more like $300-500. I was impressed by the way the website handled the enrollment process - and thoughly (though hardly surprisingly) alarmed when it asked questions like: We have you recorded on Athena Drive - is that in (a) Boston (b) Kent (c) Dagenham or (d) Cyprus. And we have a record that you own or owned one of these vehicles: (a) Ford F150 (b) Nissan 300ZX+2 (c) Morris Bullnose Cowley (d) a horse. Plus a couple of others like that....

I'm sure the government knows entirely too much about each of us - but then again, do I care?

Meade

[Lord Jim]

Well I have to say that Lynn and I are considering moving back to the USA in May next year

That's great news Gen'l...

And might I add, not a moment too soon...

Of course you do realize that at this point, you will have to undergo a rigorous regimen of Re-Americanization...(Can't have you boring your neighbors to death with coma-inducing details of the latest chapter in the endless "Ashes" saga...or the most recent "Leekies versus 'Boks" nonsense...)

Might I suggest that you order this as a good starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Series-Bost ... highlights

[MajGenl.Meade]

LJ I have to quote to you from "That Thing of Infamy - Macon's Camp Oglethorpe During the Civil War" by Morton R. McInvale. I think it is the Georgia Historical Society Review or some such:

Prison entertainment and social life was varied. Among the most popular games played by the Federals were cricket, baseball and gymnastics

Even prison and starvation were alleviated by cricket

Meade

[Lord Jim]

Even prison and starvation were alleviated by cricket

Or another way of looking at it might be to say that it takes imprisonment and starvation to make even playing cricket seem appealing...

Poor devils...

Conditions were so barbaric, they were even reduced to playing cricket...

[Big RR]

Or maybe they were debilitated to the point where they couldn't even play something as sedate as baseball, cricket is all that was left to them.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Maybe it was the poor diet - they needed more runs?

[Guinevere]

Well I have to say that Lynn and I are considering moving back to the USA in May next year

That's great news Gen'l...

And might I add, not a moment too soon...

Of course you do realize that at this point, you will have to undergo a rigorous regimen of Re-Americanization...(Can't have you boring your neighbors to death with coma-inducing details of the latest chapter in the endless "Ashes" saga...or the most recent "Leekies versus 'Boks" nonsense...)

Might I suggest that you order this as a good starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Series-Bost ... highlights

A long weekend in Boston on re-rentry and General Arnold will be all set . . .

[MajGenl.Meade]

All your fort are belong to us!

[Andrew D]

And some people wonder what "ignore" is really about ....

[Gob]

Well I have to say that Lynn and I are considering moving back to the USA in May next year - kids, grandkids and so on.

Wow, I admire your bravery. South Africa to the USA, where next? Somalia???