California’s Single-Payer Bill Comes with $400B Price Tag

By | May 24, 2017

  • May 24, 2017 at 11:48 am
    Counterpoint says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 1

    Before people get up-in-arms about this just remember that if you live outside of California it can basically do nothing but help. If it crashes and burns other states will see an influx of businesses. If it does work then it will be a model to reduce healthcare costs in other states.

    • May 24, 2017 at 1:33 pm
      Agency says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 16
      Thumb down 6

      I am in California and it will crash and burn, guaranteed. Being here all my life, I will move if this passes. Healthcare will certainly go down the drain in no time, doctors won’t even want to practice here and rightfully so. It will not be pretty, all one has to do is look at Venezuela as to what socialist does to any government that dares to try it.

      • May 24, 2017 at 2:09 pm
        Counterpoint says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 8

        I agree that it will crash and burn but not because it is managed by the government. There are governments all over the world that have had socialized medicine work and those who have had it not work. In our case it will fail due to the current state of our healthcare system and my personal opinion that socialization would need to be a slow process rather than a sudden change to even BEGIN to work in America.

        Also, it is a bit unfair to bring up Venezuela. They are collapsing due to their terrible economy rather than their healthcare.

        • May 24, 2017 at 3:25 pm
          Bill says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 11
          Thumb down 2

          Venezuela is collapsing because their form of government has led to a terrible economy. This is the country with the world’s largest oil reserves!

          • May 24, 2017 at 6:46 pm
            Counterpoint says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 5

            It is collapsing BECAUSE it has the world’s largest oil reserves. When your entire nation’s wealth hinges upon commodity prices it isn’t exactly sustainable in the long run.

          • May 25, 2017 at 4:49 pm
            RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            It’s collapsing because it has great wealth in the form of oil reserves?!

            LOL!

            Commodity prices don’t affect benefits paid to citizens and taxes collected in opposite directions.

          • May 26, 2017 at 11:25 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “Commodity prices don’t affect benefits paid to citizens and taxes collected in opposite directions.”

            Such ignorance on every single topic. This is no different than saying your income level does not affect how much you pay in taxes.

            Of course in your rant you only quoted half his statement, and it was the less relevant part.

            “When your entire nation’s wealth hinges upon commodity prices it isn’t exactly sustainable in the long run.”

            If you had an elementary understanding of economics you would be aware of the “Resource Curse,” but you don’t, and you aren’t. But for you that’s no reason not to spout off like an expert.

          • May 26, 2017 at 10:26 pm
            RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            opposite.

          • June 7, 2017 at 1:01 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            What does “opposite” even mean? Write something coherent and relevant or STFU and go back to your cartoons. It’s not debatable, you misquoted him. You did it because you aren’t able to comprehend what you read, and don’t know better, or because you are dishonest. And, as always with you guys, your age eschewing all modern research on a topic, without looking into it, because it doesn’t fit your beliefs.

  • May 24, 2017 at 1:05 pm
    Michael says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 2

    We spend so much on private health insurance already. If businesses didn’t have to pay for health insurance premiums, and had a healthier and more productive workforce, these additional taxes wouldn’t be much of a problem. If Boeing didn’t have to pay for current employee and retiree healthcare, wouldn’t they be more competitive against Airbus and Bombardier?

    • May 25, 2017 at 9:03 am
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 4

      Yes, both based in countries with socialized health care and better results for cheaper. The US should move to a system like those two.

    • May 25, 2017 at 4:52 pm
      RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 2

      Socializing DOESN’T LOWER health care costs. It increases them through the subsidies and through corruption and fraud involved in a govt run social engineering program.

      The only thing reduced in Socialized medicine is… the supply of ‘medicine’ (Health Care).

      Who do you think you will convince that your BS has merit?

  • May 24, 2017 at 2:05 pm
    Doug Spencer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    Choice and agency is Plan A, Force is Plan B. This Single–Payer routine feels like a Plan B approach.
    California may have a one party political routine which encourages this type of solution.
    Enough is enough!

    • May 25, 2017 at 12:07 pm
      Stush says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 4

      FORCE? You make it sound like folks will be arm-twisted into going along. there are monopolies all around the US in some form or another. Look at utilities. No one complains about having a single electric company owning all of the wires; we have this phony competition in electric providers but in actuality there are only a few power generators; some things like health insurance are too important to let them be “regulated” by the market: why healthcare should be a profit based proposition is beyond me. When my dad was in the army, we had one single payer, the US Army. And we didn’t suffer but in fact were well cared for. Some endeavors are not meant to be profit based and we should just try something different than my hoping I don’t get sick so I can stay financially viable….why should getting sick bankrupt anyone, including our economy? I don’t know the answer but I see enough good examples in Europe and Scandinavia to wonder why we are stiil in this mess. Oh yeah, I know, as long as it is made political.

      • May 25, 2017 at 4:54 pm
        RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 3

        Monopolies are tolerated when they behave and act in the interests of the consumer and their owners. Those that don’t run afoul of regulators and administrative agencies.

        tldnr; I saw ‘bankrupt’ and decided this ^ post is replete with liberal talking points and not worhty of the time to read it.

      • May 26, 2017 at 2:03 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Very true, but the willfully ignorant will ignore it, as they always do. Health insurance and health care cannot operate in a free market, it’s impossible. You cannot refuse to participate in the market for healthcare. You will get sick at some point. If you cannot exclude yourself from a market its not a free market. It’s so far from it in this case there is no good market-based solution. As long as the US has a system that isn’t socialized it will be more expensive and less effective, as it is now, regardless of what the Dittoheads scream before proclaiming they won’t read anything that doesn’t confirm their beliefs.

        • May 26, 2017 at 3:47 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          “Very true, but the willfully ignorant will ignore it, as they always do. Health insurance and health care cannot operate in a free market, it’s impossible. You cannot refuse to participate in the market for healthcare”

          The point of a free market is not what you put here. You can refuse to get treatment from any multitude of firms. They do have to compete with each other. They simply cannot collude to laugh together to keep prices high. Someone will come in and say “I want that money, I’ll do it for X”.

          For Laser Eye Surgery, as I have pointed out, when the government stopped covering it as well as many insurances, the cost dropped, and it has been plunging each year. It was 2,600 on average two years ago. Last year it was $2,000. That’s a huge drop. My niece, who needed it somewhere around 6 years ago had to have her eyes actually cut with a scalpel. That’s what we call archaic levels of medicine being kept alive due to not having a free market.

          Now laser eye surgery is fully affordable. Around 15 years ago it was $30,000.

          This is what happens when you make the free market work.

          They don’t really have options these people who need eye surgery, yet it went down for why I said above. In no scenario does it make sense to remove the option to get your care through other means, or pay for it through other means, than one entity who will for sure decide the caps etc.

          You will say so do insurance companies, and they do. And then other companies set other caps, and they compete to take lower payments or push people to doctors who will perform the task for less. The issue here is that regulations have made it very difficult for someone to do this, and for doctors to have any reason to not simply accept the highest payment along with regulations that push those payments higher. They then don’t target the lower payment fields. The market doesn’t adjust, because the government decides these aspects. Insurance companies are not deregulated, they are highly regulated, and have been for some time.

        • May 26, 2017 at 10:29 pm
          RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          @bob; I think UW has been brainwashed by Socialist professors to disbelieve competitive market efficiencies.

        • May 27, 2017 at 8:10 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          “The point of a free market is not what you put here.”

          I didn’t write anything about the point of a free market, I explained why it’s not a free market. I also said there isn’t a market solution.

          “You can refuse to get treatment from any multitude of firms. They do have to compete with each other. They simply cannot collude to laugh together to keep prices high.”

          You cannot refuse to get treatment overall unless you want to die. You cannot opt out of the market, meaning it’s not free. You are denying the definition of free markets, proving my statement about willfull ignorance. You know nothing. LEAVE ME ALONE

  • May 24, 2017 at 2:15 pm
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 4

    This might crash and burn…but I am curious about how much the taxes will increase compared to the reduction in the cost of benefits companies will have as they will no longer have to pay skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
    From another perspective, I know a few people from European countries with one form of socialized healthcare or another and they love it. Some of these countries also have government run retirement benefits and they love that too. They feel like they can focus more on living their lives and less on worrying about their health and retirement.

    • May 24, 2017 at 3:29 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 12

      Socialized medicine does not work and is far more expensive. European countries seem to be having a bit of trouble taking care of people injured by Islamic Terrorists. Time for them to step up and eliminate the scourge of Islamic Terrorists.

      • May 25, 2017 at 9:04 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        BS

      • May 25, 2017 at 12:07 pm
        Stush says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Prove that statement.

      • May 25, 2017 at 2:50 pm
        ADifferentGent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        Living with such terrible and malicious nonsense in your head must be very hard. I hope someday you can acknowledge there’s a problem and get the help you need.

      • May 26, 2017 at 3:50 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Considering no country currently exists with a true free market, we can’t prove it. All we can do is point to how the free market works in every other field, and scenarios in which an item became unregulated by not being covered by insurance and or government pay, like eye surgery. Why did the cost of eye surgery plummet after this?

        It’s clear that socialized medicine does inflate costs.

        • May 28, 2017 at 12:12 am
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Because after decades of government funding laser technology advanced and was adapted to be used in eye surgery, genius.

          • May 30, 2017 at 1:16 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            UW:

            This does not explain the issue. There are other high cost fields that have not gone down like say MRI’s that are typically owned by hospitals. Laser eye surgery is something that specifically is done in shops for it now for one, and for two, it is no longer covered by the government to nearly any degree as it was.

            https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/slide18.png

            We have not had proper competition in the field for some time, whether hospitals or health insurance.

            Note the change from 1990 to 2000 even. 1960 onward has been a mess.

            If you’re going to tell me we deregulated in the 60’s you’re plain wrong.

            It’s clear that many issues with healthcare won’t be solved by who pays. That hospital issue is one I’m sure you don’t fully understand, some people say that it’s hospitals buying competition, which could be partly true.

            What is evident however, is that it wouldn’t be solved by a single payer system.

          • May 30, 2017 at 5:59 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            It directly explains the question you asked. Deregulation is your explanation of the day for everything. I don’t care. Leave me alone, idiot.

          • May 31, 2017 at 4:19 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “It directly explains the question you asked.”

            No, it doesn’t, because other high tech aspects have not gone down in cost, when on insurance plans in a regulated market, or in the Medicaid payment areas.

            “Deregulation is your explanation of the day for everything. I don’t care. Leave me alone, idiot.”

            What happened in 1960 to now, that caused this explosion then UW?

            You can’t just sweep that under the rug, and ignore sound principle which does suggest that competition in a free market should bring down costs.

            Also, I’m being reasonable, stop trying to antagonize me. Like I said before, my comments may get deleted when you throw these fits but yours will also go.

            When you post in public, I have to contradict your ideals. It’s the way the world works. But you don’t like being contradicted. If you don’t want me to combat your ideals, feel free not to post. But I can choose to point them out as being incorrect.

          • May 31, 2017 at 4:21 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            By the way,

            Your solution is always government control and regulation. What of it? This doesn’t mean you’re wrong. I have to argue the merits of the discussion at hand. It could be that the things I’m arguing for happen to be over regulated. Saying that I say things are over regulated on multiple issues discredits that they are deregulated is not a method of debate. What college did you go to that taught you this? They clearly didn’t allow for free information flow and debate. You’re used to talking in an echo chamber and using these debate tactics. They are dishonest.

  • May 24, 2017 at 4:02 pm
    Lou says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 3

    This is nuts. I lived and worked in England during the 1970’s. We had socialized medicine and it was horrible. Doctors, nurses, staff just didn’t care. They felt underpaid, under appreciated, and certainly didn’t care about patients. Why would they, they couldn’t be fired. The managers didn’t care as well for same reasons. Huge discrepancies in levels of care from one place to another. Centralized control was influenced by whom was in power. Always changing. The English people were shortchanged. The ones that could went back to private which was much better, but still had to pay taxes to subsidize illegals, lazy people and every one else.

    • May 25, 2017 at 4:55 pm
      RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      Same goes for my experiences in Can-duh.

  • May 24, 2017 at 4:56 pm
    JustCurious says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 0

    Why zero co-pay? Why not reasonable co-pays to help offset the cost and to motivate people to try to be healthy and not abuse the medical care?

  • May 24, 2017 at 8:00 pm
    Sensibility says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 7

    For those who want Single payer, move to Canada and take it for a test drive. Why do well off Liberal Socialists come to the USA for major surgeries, while on vacation. It’s odd how many get sick or pregnant when they visit the U.S. It must be the water we drink.I also could never understand why pregnancy in itself is an illness, not to mention abortions. But then, we are going through disturbing times. Where are the stats? Do more people die from our abortionist doctors or terrorists. How many of these people attended the same universities. One must ask themselves, are we still evolving as a species? Or did we miss the apex and are on the way down.

    • May 25, 2017 at 4:57 pm
      RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      I can support your position through my experience in Cana-duh. Limited supply of HC when SP Govt control rations it due to budget constraints and the fact that many do not pay in to the system but reap FREE HC treatment, so they utilize it… like a rented mule.

      • May 26, 2017 at 2:06 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        There are dozens, if not hundreds, of studies showing this to be false. Delays are for less important procedures and generally match the US waits, willfully ignorant genius.

        • May 26, 2017 at 3:51 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          The U.S. Market is not a deregulated market UW.

          Socialized medicine can outperform a highly regulated mess.

  • May 25, 2017 at 3:02 am
    FriSian says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 3

    Only in America… It seems that only in America can you produce a proposal to change the most expensive health care system in the world into one that is even more expensive – using the principles that have made healthcare less expensive in most other developed economies. You don’t need single-payer, and you do need some market mechanics. Here is a simple solution.
    -1 everyone needs to buy a basic health package for a basic premium.
    -2 those who cannot afford that, will receive some govt help with it.
    -3 insurance companies compete to provide this at the best cost. $100 a month is common in e.g. Netherlands.

    The basic package works as a loss leader to up-sell to people who want more/faster/better. But it also helps drive volume to the insurers who commission healthcare from public and private hospitals.

    Composition of basic package (and medicines used etc – eg generics) is set by the government.

    Result: better healthcare for everyone at much lower cost, freedom for those who want more, competition in the right places and lower profits for big pharma. The latter is the surest sign of a system that works better.

    • May 25, 2017 at 9:06 am
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 2

      The numbers here are less as a percentage of GDP the the US already spends.

      • May 26, 2017 at 3:53 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        And those numbers would be less with a working free market, and then coverage offered to those who absolutely cannot afford it.

        The free market needs to be put into play, and deregulation needs to occur. We already see that the cost of health insurance did not explode until after the 60’s. Something caused that, and it was not the free market, which had worked prior.

        Unless you want things like eye surgery to explode to $30,000, and things similar fall off from coverage from a universal government program, leave the insurance companies intact. There is no reason to just destroy them for the hell of it. Just make a program for the poor, and then they have coverage. You don’t need to jam it down everyone else’s throat.

      • May 26, 2017 at 3:55 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Considering how much is bad now, what do you have against trying a true free market against a public option?

        I think your extremity shows here. You think you know what you know, but I don’t, and I have reason to question it.

        I want to see a deregulated market beside a public option. And I’ll tell you what, if the free market doesn’t work, I’ll go public option. Does that sound fair?

        Would you be willing to allow this?

  • May 25, 2017 at 7:49 am
    RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 6

    If this ever went into effect, I’d watch how many Hollyweirdos move to another state to shelter their income and wealth from taxes that must DOUBLE to cover the CA SP HC costs.

    You can check out anytime you like, but some poor suckers can never leave.

    • May 25, 2017 at 9:10 am
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 3

      Yes, it’s going to start happening any day, just like it has been about to happen any day for the last 60 years. Property is expensive many places there because nobody wants to live there.

      • May 25, 2017 at 5:01 pm
        RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        Nope. Property is expensive in small, urban areas due to proximity to the jobs in the area. Poor commuter services / roads built when many fewer cars were on the roads, and lack of sufficient public transportation… all drive up the cost of RE ‘close to work’.

        Property isn’t expensive where no one wants to live.

        Please pay attention to details of RE costs by zip code, ok?

        • May 25, 2017 at 5:52 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Exactly, property isn’t expensive where nobody wants to live; it is expensive where people want to live. Your fantasy, which flies in the face of decades of economic research and history is that companies will leave en masse and create a new area of economic activity despite almost no demand for their products there. It’s basically Gault’s Gulch, but more fantastical, and like I said, the same claim has been made by uneducated people on the right for 50 years, and it’s been wrong for 50 years.

  • May 25, 2017 at 9:08 am
    jadefox says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    Badger Care!!

    I had it for my family and it worked very well. All our doctors took it and PREFERRED IT OVER COMMERICAL GROUP INSURANCE. Why, because they did not have to fight to get paid and argue with some lowly CSR who just read the manual.

    What is Badger Care?

    BadgerCare is a health-care cost-reimbursement program created by former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson. It went into effect July 1, 1999, and was created to provide health-care coverage to Wisconsinites whose employers didn’t provide it and who made too much money to be covered by Medicaid.

    BadgerCare – Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BadgerCare

    • May 25, 2017 at 5:01 pm
      RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 2

      Bear Care will be much better. Wait.

      • May 26, 2017 at 1:18 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        You mean Barecare, because it covers little and kills you if you have anything other than the bare minimum illness.

      • May 28, 2017 at 7:26 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Nope. I meant what I wrote.

  • May 25, 2017 at 10:17 am
    HMM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 3

    So in California according to this bill, the government will pay for 100% of healthcare needed or wanted to any resident in the state, legal or illegal. Instead of paying a premium, the state will tax all people more, one way or another. Also, in California, it is not legal for a hospital or other health care provider to ask residency type questions because of the fear they might find out someone is illegal, so what would stop someone from coming to this state to have their expensive work done. It would be easy for the rich in other state to get a mailbox in CA and have procedures done in CA. Also, a quick note. In 99.9% of cases, the legislative analysts underestimate costs–usually it is the tip of the iceberg. As the current governor has said on numerous occasions, promise much at a low estimated cost, then people will support you no matter the cost as they are invested. Now, of course, since profit and greed are taken out of the equation, the government certainly has the track record of making things extremely efficient and could actually save 150%. Government accounting.
    Spend something with the promise of a low number, then when it

    • May 26, 2017 at 9:13 am
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 1

      “Also, a quick note. In 99.9% of cases, the legislative analysts underestimate costs”

      BS. Conservatives just cannot deal with numbers in any way other than outright lying. CBO, BLS, & The Fed all have a history of being pretty accurate and if you ever took the time to look at the work tend to overshoot and undershoot about equally.

      • May 26, 2017 at 3:57 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        I already showed they were wrong on any major prediction in the last 50 years. See the CBO rating for premiums where they should be right now. They were off by several thousands of dollars.

        They predicted the economic growth under Reagan dramatically under what it was, and have made innumerous miscalculations.

      • May 26, 2017 at 3:59 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        As a side comment UW: I know it’s you causing these wars here getting comments deleted.

        Do you know what’s in common though? Yours get deleted too. If you want to throw tantrums when I leave commentary to your posts, you’ll find you won’t have any posts left over either. Cause and effect. Maybe you’ll stop crying wolf on this aspect. I’ll keep responding to your posts…And they may well all end up deleted if you keep raging when I do.

        I will add nothing I have put here today has been a personal attack. So I expect reasonable discussion here.

      • May 28, 2017 at 7:35 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        No, UW, the CBO sucks big time in estimating impacts of important programs. And, as I said MULTIPLE TIMES regarding ACA, it was horrendous in projecting favorable results so far off what occurred, based on a political agenda. There were NO premium decreases, other than ‘complete subsidies’ being FALSELY interpreted as a premium decrease. The projected policy cover growth was only HALF of what CBO projected. FAIL! FAIL! FAIL!
        Fire them all and hire a private consulting firm (I won’t advertise any by naming one) to do DUE DILIGENCE work on such forecasts in the future and save taxpayers millions of dollars while getting more meaningful and accurate analyses.

  • May 28, 2017 at 1:48 pm
    RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Donald Fagen of Steely Dan once sang “California tumbles into the sea; that’ll be the day I go back to Annandale.” Methinks he will add another option to return to Annandale NY due to the HYUUUUGE tax increase he’ll be facing in California if the SP HC proposal goes through.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*