|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 06 2015 12:08 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 12:01 Millitron wrote:
I liked Ron Paul's idea. No ACA or universal healthcare, but anyone who absolutely cannot pay is covered in the form of tax breaks for the hospitals/doctors/pharma companies that treated them. You're free to get insurance if you want it, or not. No, we should just make medical debt stick after bankruptcy, just like student loans. Keep that market captive, keep the capital flowing, and make the deteriorating health of the american people the next cash cow.
In fairness, that would be a decent way to push income redistribution (upwards) a bit further. I just wonder how long it is until someone starts pushing for more rights for lenders to pursue collecting from dead peoples heirs.
Particularly when these guys start dying in larger numbers.
Nearly 40% of retired Americans said they've accumulated credit-card debt in their twilight years — and aren't worried about paying it off in their lifetime, according to a survey released by CESI Debt Solutions.
"At the end of the day, some people of a certain age say, 'It's too late in the game for me to do anything about it. I can't win. So I'm just going to stop playing the game,'" said Neil Ellington, executive vice president at CESI.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 06 2015 12:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 05:10 Millitron wrote:On January 06 2015 05:00 tadL wrote:I hope all that are against this are rich as hell or never get really sick. Because if no your country will let you die. And you are betting on this I hope you know it. You bet that you will never get really sick, I would not want to do this. Sorry I don't understand that you even argue about it. Its something good! You had a healthcare system once and it got destroyed for the sake of profit. That greedy people can make more money from you people. And not because its in your best interest. Imagine a place where you get cancer. lets say you served in your military and they used nuclear munition and did not tell the soldiers to stay away from places where this munition got used (should sound familiar right?). for example a destroyed tank. you come home, you get cancer because you wanted to take a selfi, maybe keep something as a trophy. You can go to your doctor and you will get all the help you want and need. you will get cured and now comes the best. you will not loose your job, not loose your house because you need to pay the bills. all you had to do is pay a small amount that all can get help if they need it. Or your girl is pregnant and there are complications. you can go to the doctor can get all the help the love of your life needs and the baby and your wife will arrive safe. you do not have to worry about money. your life goes on and you have not to pay a huge credit. And yes that amuses me. But well you had kind of no chance because of the brainwashing you get since you are born. Healthcare is communist hrhrhrhr ^^ ps: + Show Spoiler +Just out of curiosity. Who can afford to get cancer and heard attack? I can? Can you? You've bought into the idea that medical care without insurance has to be expensive. It doesn't. Pharmaceutical companies do everything in their power to keep prices high, and they can get away with it because people have insurance. It doesn't matter if none of their patients could afford their drugs because the insurance companies can. Get rid of insurance, and prices will fall. They'll have to because people would be unable to buy them at current prices. Then you need to consider patent law. Pharma companies repeatedly change the formula to their drugs right as the patent is about to expire. They change some non-active ingredients a little, and bam, they have a monopoly on that treatment again for another ~5 years. Universal Healthcare and/or the ACA just reinforces these problems. Getting "rid of insurance" seems like a monumentally stupid idea. You would rather have everyone pay out of pocket for their own costs? Your idea of how a pharma company uses patents to keep their prices high is a bit wonky. Changing the "non-active ingredients" a little might grant an extended period of patent protection, but the old formula still becomes available on time. It's not as if you can change the non-active ingredients to get another patent and extend protection while also preventing people from using the old formulation once the patent for that expires.
not sure why it is such a bad idea. health insurance is largely unproductive and adds like 30% of cost.
|
On January 06 2015 12:23 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 12:17 IgnE wrote:On January 06 2015 05:10 Millitron wrote:On January 06 2015 05:00 tadL wrote:I hope all that are against this are rich as hell or never get really sick. Because if no your country will let you die. And you are betting on this I hope you know it. You bet that you will never get really sick, I would not want to do this. Sorry I don't understand that you even argue about it. Its something good! You had a healthcare system once and it got destroyed for the sake of profit. That greedy people can make more money from you people. And not because its in your best interest. Imagine a place where you get cancer. lets say you served in your military and they used nuclear munition and did not tell the soldiers to stay away from places where this munition got used (should sound familiar right?). for example a destroyed tank. you come home, you get cancer because you wanted to take a selfi, maybe keep something as a trophy. You can go to your doctor and you will get all the help you want and need. you will get cured and now comes the best. you will not loose your job, not loose your house because you need to pay the bills. all you had to do is pay a small amount that all can get help if they need it. Or your girl is pregnant and there are complications. you can go to the doctor can get all the help the love of your life needs and the baby and your wife will arrive safe. you do not have to worry about money. your life goes on and you have not to pay a huge credit. And yes that amuses me. But well you had kind of no chance because of the brainwashing you get since you are born. Healthcare is communist hrhrhrhr ^^ ps: + Show Spoiler +Just out of curiosity. Who can afford to get cancer and heard attack? I can? Can you? You've bought into the idea that medical care without insurance has to be expensive. It doesn't. Pharmaceutical companies do everything in their power to keep prices high, and they can get away with it because people have insurance. It doesn't matter if none of their patients could afford their drugs because the insurance companies can. Get rid of insurance, and prices will fall. They'll have to because people would be unable to buy them at current prices. Then you need to consider patent law. Pharma companies repeatedly change the formula to their drugs right as the patent is about to expire. They change some non-active ingredients a little, and bam, they have a monopoly on that treatment again for another ~5 years. Universal Healthcare and/or the ACA just reinforces these problems. Getting "rid of insurance" seems like a monumentally stupid idea. You would rather have everyone pay out of pocket for their own costs? Your idea of how a pharma company uses patents to keep their prices high is a bit wonky. Changing the "non-active ingredients" a little might grant an extended period of patent protection, but the old formula still becomes available on time. It's not as if you can change the non-active ingredients to get another patent and extend protection while also preventing people from using the old formulation once the patent for that expires. not sure why it is such a bad idea. health insurance is largely unproductive and adds like 30% of cost.
If you want to replace it with a universal healthcare system then fine. That's still kind of an insurance scheme though.
|
On January 06 2015 12:23 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 12:17 IgnE wrote:On January 06 2015 05:10 Millitron wrote:On January 06 2015 05:00 tadL wrote:I hope all that are against this are rich as hell or never get really sick. Because if no your country will let you die. And you are betting on this I hope you know it. You bet that you will never get really sick, I would not want to do this. Sorry I don't understand that you even argue about it. Its something good! You had a healthcare system once and it got destroyed for the sake of profit. That greedy people can make more money from you people. And not because its in your best interest. Imagine a place where you get cancer. lets say you served in your military and they used nuclear munition and did not tell the soldiers to stay away from places where this munition got used (should sound familiar right?). for example a destroyed tank. you come home, you get cancer because you wanted to take a selfi, maybe keep something as a trophy. You can go to your doctor and you will get all the help you want and need. you will get cured and now comes the best. you will not loose your job, not loose your house because you need to pay the bills. all you had to do is pay a small amount that all can get help if they need it. Or your girl is pregnant and there are complications. you can go to the doctor can get all the help the love of your life needs and the baby and your wife will arrive safe. you do not have to worry about money. your life goes on and you have not to pay a huge credit. And yes that amuses me. But well you had kind of no chance because of the brainwashing you get since you are born. Healthcare is communist hrhrhrhr ^^ ps: + Show Spoiler +Just out of curiosity. Who can afford to get cancer and heard attack? I can? Can you? You've bought into the idea that medical care without insurance has to be expensive. It doesn't. Pharmaceutical companies do everything in their power to keep prices high, and they can get away with it because people have insurance. It doesn't matter if none of their patients could afford their drugs because the insurance companies can. Get rid of insurance, and prices will fall. They'll have to because people would be unable to buy them at current prices. Then you need to consider patent law. Pharma companies repeatedly change the formula to their drugs right as the patent is about to expire. They change some non-active ingredients a little, and bam, they have a monopoly on that treatment again for another ~5 years. Universal Healthcare and/or the ACA just reinforces these problems. Getting "rid of insurance" seems like a monumentally stupid idea. You would rather have everyone pay out of pocket for their own costs? Your idea of how a pharma company uses patents to keep their prices high is a bit wonky. Changing the "non-active ingredients" a little might grant an extended period of patent protection, but the old formula still becomes available on time. It's not as if you can change the non-active ingredients to get another patent and extend protection while also preventing people from using the old formulation once the patent for that expires. not sure why it is such a bad idea. health insurance is largely unproductive and adds like 30% of cost.
what do you mean by that? a lot of countries with universal healthcare have very productive healthcare systems with low costs per capita.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
?
talking about health insurance
|
On January 06 2015 15:04 oneofthem wrote:
?
talking about health insurance
I can see how one would like to cut red tape and administrative costs, go directly to the doctors etc. is there something like a best practice model, a theory or something along those lines? something we could build on?
|
On January 06 2015 12:23 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 12:17 IgnE wrote:On January 06 2015 05:10 Millitron wrote:On January 06 2015 05:00 tadL wrote:I hope all that are against this are rich as hell or never get really sick. Because if no your country will let you die. And you are betting on this I hope you know it. You bet that you will never get really sick, I would not want to do this. Sorry I don't understand that you even argue about it. Its something good! You had a healthcare system once and it got destroyed for the sake of profit. That greedy people can make more money from you people. And not because its in your best interest. Imagine a place where you get cancer. lets say you served in your military and they used nuclear munition and did not tell the soldiers to stay away from places where this munition got used (should sound familiar right?). for example a destroyed tank. you come home, you get cancer because you wanted to take a selfi, maybe keep something as a trophy. You can go to your doctor and you will get all the help you want and need. you will get cured and now comes the best. you will not loose your job, not loose your house because you need to pay the bills. all you had to do is pay a small amount that all can get help if they need it. Or your girl is pregnant and there are complications. you can go to the doctor can get all the help the love of your life needs and the baby and your wife will arrive safe. you do not have to worry about money. your life goes on and you have not to pay a huge credit. And yes that amuses me. But well you had kind of no chance because of the brainwashing you get since you are born. Healthcare is communist hrhrhrhr ^^ ps: + Show Spoiler +Just out of curiosity. Who can afford to get cancer and heard attack? I can? Can you? You've bought into the idea that medical care without insurance has to be expensive. It doesn't. Pharmaceutical companies do everything in their power to keep prices high, and they can get away with it because people have insurance. It doesn't matter if none of their patients could afford their drugs because the insurance companies can. Get rid of insurance, and prices will fall. They'll have to because people would be unable to buy them at current prices. Then you need to consider patent law. Pharma companies repeatedly change the formula to their drugs right as the patent is about to expire. They change some non-active ingredients a little, and bam, they have a monopoly on that treatment again for another ~5 years. Universal Healthcare and/or the ACA just reinforces these problems. Getting "rid of insurance" seems like a monumentally stupid idea. You would rather have everyone pay out of pocket for their own costs? Your idea of how a pharma company uses patents to keep their prices high is a bit wonky. Changing the "non-active ingredients" a little might grant an extended period of patent protection, but the old formula still becomes available on time. It's not as if you can change the non-active ingredients to get another patent and extend protection while also preventing people from using the old formulation once the patent for that expires. not sure why it is such a bad idea. health insurance is largely unproductive and adds like 30% of cost.
30% sounds very high. Where do you get that from? Insurance pays out around 90% of premiums, add in tax effects and unavoidable admin costs and you're maybe down to around 5%.
|
now that could become interesting.
A Ferguson grand juror who heard the case of Darren Wilson previewed potentially scathing criticism of St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, in a lawsuit alleging that McCulloch skewed the views of jurors when he delivered a lengthy public presentation to announce that the jury wouldn’t file any charges against Wilson for killing Michael Brown.
and
Among Grand Juror Doe’s concerns are that Wilson’s case was treated dramatically different than hundreds of other cases he heard during his grand jury service.
via thinkprogress
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i did some research on it back when the topic of health insurance company profit margin came up. i was saying the low margin indicated that they don't have much power. there was this rand report that had the 30% ish figure about the overall cost represented by the industry on healthcare. the effect was not only skimming premium, but also distortion behavioral effect of insurance on consumer and providers. i'll try to find the actual reference
|
On January 06 2015 15:47 Doublemint wrote:now that could become interesting. Show nested quote +A Ferguson grand juror who heard the case of Darren Wilson previewed potentially scathing criticism of St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, in a lawsuit alleging that McCulloch skewed the views of jurors when he delivered a lengthy public presentation to announce that the jury wouldn’t file any charges against Wilson for killing Michael Brown. and Show nested quote +Among Grand Juror Doe’s concerns are that Wilson’s case was treated dramatically different than hundreds of other cases he heard during his grand jury service. via thinkprogress
It was already pretty well known (acknowledged and commented upon by numerous experts) that the case was handled very differently than most grand jury proceedings (which tend to be a bit unfair and virtually always return an indictment if that's what the prosecutor wants).
Sadly, the abnormal proceeding are closer to a properly run, just system, than the usual proceedings of grand juries.
|
well, we will see about that, won't we?
|
On January 06 2015 16:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 15:47 Doublemint wrote:now that could become interesting. A Ferguson grand juror who heard the case of Darren Wilson previewed potentially scathing criticism of St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, in a lawsuit alleging that McCulloch skewed the views of jurors when he delivered a lengthy public presentation to announce that the jury wouldn’t file any charges against Wilson for killing Michael Brown. and Among Grand Juror Doe’s concerns are that Wilson’s case was treated dramatically different than hundreds of other cases he heard during his grand jury service. via thinkprogress It was already pretty well known (acknowledged and commented upon by numerous experts) that the case was handled very differently than most grand jury proceedings (which tend to be a bit unfair and virtually always return an indictment if that's what the prosecutor wants). Sadly, the abnormal proceeding are closer to a properly run, just system, than the usual proceedings of grand juries.
I suppose that depends on what you think "properly run" means?
|
On January 05 2015 06:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 05:30 IgnE wrote:
No, they are. If that was the only reason, the main reason, then you can accomplish the goal of universal healthcare with a single payer. If that was the main reason then they would not respond by saying, "well let's just scrap the whole idea then." But they do want to scrap universal healthcare because they think healthcare is a privilege rather than a right. 1) Healthcare isn't in the Bill of Rights anywhere. 2) There's no reason you can't be opposed to the ACA for one reason, and opposed to a single-payer plan for another.
Bro for someone who receives free healthcare you sure have strange opinions. You think healthcare is only a right for you because you're disabled? Screw everyone else? Shit since healthcare isn't a right why dont we just scrap medicaid for people who can't support themselves and just give it to the working class. Theyre more important to the economy anyway. Well call is a business decision. Remember its not your right to receive free care out of our pockets.
|
On January 06 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The scandal over Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise’s 2002 speech to a white supremacist group has so badly damaged his image inside the House Republican Conference that he faces serious questions over his political future, according to interviews with multiple aides and lawmakers — including some Scalise allies.
Scalise’s job as House majority whip remains safe – and Speaker John Boehner has publicly backed him — but he may be too toxic for some Republican circles. Top GOP aides and lawmakers question whether he’ll be able to raise funds, especially on trips to New York or Los Angeles. Senior figures within the party doubt that the corporate chieftains and rich donors who bankroll Republican candidates will give him money to keep campaign coffers filled. Others say it will be difficult for him to persuade lawmakers to support the House Republican agenda.
Rank-and-file GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, found themselves defending Scalise back home, a potentially fatal flaw for someone who wants to serve in leadership. Many of these lawmakers are faced with blistering editorials from hometown newspapers calling for Scalise to step down. Conservative activists like Mark Levin, Erick Erickson and Sarah Palin have all said he should be booted out of GOP leadership.
“As far as him going up to the Northeast, or going out to Los Angeles or San Francisco or Chicago, he’s damaged,” said a GOP lawmaker who asked not to be named. “This thing is still smoking. Nobody is really fanning the flames yet. … The thing that concerns me is that there are people who are still out there digging on this right now.” Source
That looks like a really big deal, I kinda of wonder how hard that will blow up in the GOP's face if he keeps the whip job. I mean its not like they can do any worse with non white voters...
|
On January 06 2015 22:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The scandal over Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise’s 2002 speech to a white supremacist group has so badly damaged his image inside the House Republican Conference that he faces serious questions over his political future, according to interviews with multiple aides and lawmakers — including some Scalise allies.
Scalise’s job as House majority whip remains safe – and Speaker John Boehner has publicly backed him — but he may be too toxic for some Republican circles. Top GOP aides and lawmakers question whether he’ll be able to raise funds, especially on trips to New York or Los Angeles. Senior figures within the party doubt that the corporate chieftains and rich donors who bankroll Republican candidates will give him money to keep campaign coffers filled. Others say it will be difficult for him to persuade lawmakers to support the House Republican agenda.
Rank-and-file GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, found themselves defending Scalise back home, a potentially fatal flaw for someone who wants to serve in leadership. Many of these lawmakers are faced with blistering editorials from hometown newspapers calling for Scalise to step down. Conservative activists like Mark Levin, Erick Erickson and Sarah Palin have all said he should be booted out of GOP leadership.
“As far as him going up to the Northeast, or going out to Los Angeles or San Francisco or Chicago, he’s damaged,” said a GOP lawmaker who asked not to be named. “This thing is still smoking. Nobody is really fanning the flames yet. … The thing that concerns me is that there are people who are still out there digging on this right now.” Source That looks like a really big deal, I kinda of wonder how hard that will blow up in the GOP's face if he keeps the whip job. I mean its not like they can do any worse with non white voters...
Will it blow up though? I spend a Iot of time in LA and they mostly seem to think he did nothing wrong. They are backing him, you should hear the justifications on talk radio.
|
On January 06 2015 22:16 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 22:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On January 06 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The scandal over Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise’s 2002 speech to a white supremacist group has so badly damaged his image inside the House Republican Conference that he faces serious questions over his political future, according to interviews with multiple aides and lawmakers — including some Scalise allies.
Scalise’s job as House majority whip remains safe – and Speaker John Boehner has publicly backed him — but he may be too toxic for some Republican circles. Top GOP aides and lawmakers question whether he’ll be able to raise funds, especially on trips to New York or Los Angeles. Senior figures within the party doubt that the corporate chieftains and rich donors who bankroll Republican candidates will give him money to keep campaign coffers filled. Others say it will be difficult for him to persuade lawmakers to support the House Republican agenda.
Rank-and-file GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, found themselves defending Scalise back home, a potentially fatal flaw for someone who wants to serve in leadership. Many of these lawmakers are faced with blistering editorials from hometown newspapers calling for Scalise to step down. Conservative activists like Mark Levin, Erick Erickson and Sarah Palin have all said he should be booted out of GOP leadership.
“As far as him going up to the Northeast, or going out to Los Angeles or San Francisco or Chicago, he’s damaged,” said a GOP lawmaker who asked not to be named. “This thing is still smoking. Nobody is really fanning the flames yet. … The thing that concerns me is that there are people who are still out there digging on this right now.” Source That looks like a really big deal, I kinda of wonder how hard that will blow up in the GOP's face if he keeps the whip job. I mean its not like they can do any worse with non white voters... Will it blow up though? I spend a Iot of time in LA and they mostly seem to think he did nothing wrong. They are backing him, you should hear the justifications on talk radio.
I'd much rather not here those justifications. But if he stays the house whip its going to cement the fact that the gop is pushing themselves as the party exclusively of angry old white men who long for the days when those uppity minorities knew their place.
|
WASHINGTON — Coinciding with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto’s trip to Washington, activists ramped up pressure Tuesday on the United States to withdraw its support from an administration that they allege is riven with corruption and frequently colludes with the drug cartels it is supposed to be fighting.
Demonstrations are planned in 11 cities across the U.S. as Peña Nieto travels to the White House to meet with President Barack Obama and Cabinet secretaries for a day that is meant to focus primarily on economic cooperation.
Peña Nieto vowed in a Sunday address to combat corruption and impunity, and to strengthen transparency. In late November he announced a 10-point package of reforms that sought to address corruption at the municipal level, but his critics appear far from satisfied.
“Mexico cannot continue like this,” Peña Nieto said. “After Iguala, Mexico has to change.” He was referring to a rural town where 43 students disappeared last year in an incident blamed on local corruption.
The protesters, many of whom are Mexican-Americans, say they want the U.S. to halt aid to the Mexican government, particularly through the Merida Initiative. The bilateral agreement, signed by the U.S. and Mexico in 2007, has funneled $2.3 billion to the Mexican government to combat drug cartels and organized crime as part of the U.S.’s decades-long war on drugs.
Critics say the initiative has instead militarized security forces in Mexico and funded widespread human rights abuses by the government against its people, despite specific conditions pertaining to human rights in the initiative. Human Rights Watch says it has documented numerous examples of these abuses, “including 149 cases of enforced disappearances.”
Source
|
On January 06 2015 21:50 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 06:34 Millitron wrote:On January 05 2015 05:30 IgnE wrote:
No, they are. If that was the only reason, the main reason, then you can accomplish the goal of universal healthcare with a single payer. If that was the main reason then they would not respond by saying, "well let's just scrap the whole idea then." But they do want to scrap universal healthcare because they think healthcare is a privilege rather than a right. 1) Healthcare isn't in the Bill of Rights anywhere. 2) There's no reason you can't be opposed to the ACA for one reason, and opposed to a single-payer plan for another. Bro for someone who receives free healthcare you sure have strange opinions. You think healthcare is only a right for you because you're disabled? Screw everyone else? Shit since healthcare isn't a right why dont we just scrap medicaid for people who can't support themselves and just give it to the working class. Theyre more important to the economy anyway. Well call is a business decision. Remember its not your right to receive free care out of our pockets.
I never said I'd be upset if they scrapped medicaid. It would hurt me economically, sure, but I'd be cool with it because it would help protect property rights.
I'm going to take advantage of the system as long as it exists, but if it went away, I'd be fine with that too.
|
Two more NYPD cops shot today:
An armed robbery call nearly turned deadly for two New York police officers, leading to an exchange of gunfire that ended with the officers hospitalized, a manhunt and fresh scrutiny surrounding the United States' most populated city -- specifically, about the safety of police on the street.
The wounded officers spent Tuesday morning in the Bronx's St. Barnabas Hospital. One of them, 30-year-old Andrew Dossi, is in critical condition following surgery after being shot in the arm and lower back, according to police. The other, 38-year-old Aliro Pellerano, is in stable condition with gunshot wounds to the chest and arm.
The call about an armed robbery at a Bronx grocery store came in around 10:30 p.m. Monday, as five plainclothes officers were coming off their shift.
Rather than going home, the police went to look for the criminals -- something that de Blasio described as "extraordinarily brave and ... part of their commitment."
They spotted two men who were the suspected robbers, based on descriptions called in to police. Two officers approached one of the suspects on the street.
The other went inside a Chinese restaurant. Surveillance video, released by police, shows him at the counter, speaking to a person behind a window. The man then abruptly turns around, pulls out a gun and charges out of the take-out establishment with it pointed forward.
Officers returned fire, with two of them shot in the exchange. Police Commissioner William Bratton said that one of the suspects may have been struck as well.
It is hard to tell at this point if this was a motivated shooting or if it was a mundane robbery that went bad. At the link, CNN has the surveillance video of him talking to someone (presumably making an order) and then firing his gun from inside the restaurant.
|
It was armed robbery and if the suspects were the actual perpetrators then their the motivation was to get away. Not "fuck the police" the media will try and spin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
