The Billionaires Strike Back

The Billionaires Against Health Reform came down to mingle with us little people yet again on August 29th at a Pro-Health Reform rally hosted by the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP at the State Capitol. Top hats, pearls, cigars, champagne flutes. Although, this time they got their baby-soft hands on the microphone.

“Billionaires in this country have had enough,” stated Locke E. D’Martin. “Its time for us to stand up for our profit rights. For every person whose brave enough to own a Rolls Royce, for every one who summers in Martha’s Vineyard for every millionaire who dreams of becoming a billionaire, its time to say no! Hands off our profits!”

Whether you agree or not, the Billionaires are definitely making some splash, both here in Raleigh and all the way on the other side of the pond. Gary Younge of the UK’s Guardian had this to say about the Saturday soriee.

All jokes aside, the Billionaires aren’t playing around. Ignacio Adriasola gave the group’s final statements, saying,

“You might have seen us at some of the other health care forums. We are interested in using performance strategies to make fun of the way that right-wing nonsense has become mainstream in our political conversations. Our aim is to remind people how profit is driving the current debate and why its so important to have a non-profit health system. Health is not wealth. Health is a human right we all deserve. Thank you.”

For more information about the group or if you want to become a Billionaire yourself (it’s no problem to make the pie higher) email BillionairesAgainstHealth@gmail.com.

JRD09/02 09:08 AM

These “billionaires” are a little misinformed and misguided.

jandrews09/02 09:21 AM

The “billionares” recognize the proposed ‘plan’ translates into “let the people who actually work pay for the people who are too lazy to work.”

ever heard of ‘free ride’.

thomas09/02 09:53 AM

all those people too lazy to work=
children, the elderly, underpaid manual laborers, single parents stretched thin, graduates who can’t find a job in a shitty economy, those who are laid off, the mentally ill who are not ill enough for our terrible mental health system, reformed and released prisoners, and yes, even actual lazy people.

it’s time to deflate the ego that suggests those of us who “have” are somehow better and harder working than those who don’t. the phrase “those less fortunate” is literal. with only anecdotal exception, “upward mobility” is a joke.

Fire depts, police, roads, schools, social security, military, are all “socialized” systems which everybody pays for. it’s about time we join every other first world country and make health care available to all who need it. i’ll be happy to pay it with my taxes. (much happier than i am to pay for the financial pit that is “the war on terrorism”).

Dwight09/02 10:10 AM

Right on, Thomas.

Betsy09/02 10:20 AM

I had a profitable business which I folded because I couldn’t be sure that I could continue to buy health insurance on the private market. My business was successful, but without the ability to manage risk, I could not justify continuing it. So, I wrapped up my affairs, and went to work for the state. Way to grow the economy!

Health insurance reform is about job creation and enabling entrepreneurs and small businesses to take risk. This isn’t about handouts, folks. It’s about rescuing our economy from an outdated system where insured status is linked to employment for a big, hide-bound company—and most of us aren’t in that place any more.

arthurb309/02 10:32 AM

We all pay through higher cost because those without healthcare end up in emergency rooms for basic needs where the cost is passed along to us all through higher prices. Health insurance for everyone makes sense.

LB09/02 10:38 AM

Why does everyone look to the federal government for solutions to our problems these days?!? I don’t get it. You trust Washington DC to mandate an industry to death and stretch our federal deficit until its wit’s end; not to mention distribute health care? And no, $1 trillion to create a public “option” is not deficit neutral, no way in hell. The American federal government was not created to act as a wealth distributor, but unfortunately that’s the way some people see it these days. There are other ways to fix these issues, than allow an out of control bureaucracy to seize and control 1/6 of the private sector is the wrong path to take. Somebody explain to me how someone can call themselves a liberal, yet campaign for the growth and inflation of a all mighty government that seems to only be confiscating individual liberty.

jeremy09/02 10:51 AM

thomas, you are correct sir. i love how the right wing is once again making everyone think that we are going to be passing out “free rides” when the reality is, as arthur stated: “..those without healthcare end up in emergency rooms for basic needs…”. so in reality, we are ALREADY paying for the healthcare of others, but we are paying much higher prices because of the profiteering by healthcare providers and insurance companies. the legal dope dealers in this country are outsourcing the labor to make the drugs that the sick need in our own country and marking them up literally 1000’s of percents. i also second thomas on being willing to spend tax dollars on the physical and mental well being of our citizens than on “the war on terror” where it looks like, again we have allowed people to make profit (haliburton, black water) at our expense and make us look like baffoons in the process. has anyone seen the “private security” officials’ frat party at the U.S. embassy in afghanistan? nice work right wing, let’s overpay greedy people more money for what some people are already getting paid meagerly to do the right way? uh fool me once, uh shame… uh well it’s an old sayin’..

roi09/02 10:58 AM

Isn’t this group just a “spoof” none of which are billionaires, but are really liberals dressed up as billionaires in order to raise the heat on those that might be against the President’s plan. We definitely need some changes; so I will just wait and see what shakes out. My experience that some government programs are often expensive and very poorly administered. Inefficent private ventures are subject to going out of business whereas most government programs do not go bankrupt.

thomas09/02 11:07 AM

LB, you are correct that the government was not created as a wealth distributor. unfortunately the government-officiated free market system shuffles the deck unevenly: it ensures that few are rich, many are poor, and many are inbetween(only an unforeseen expense/job loss away from being poor, and some miracle away from being rich). this i believe makes it the government’s responsibilities to offer those less privileged the chance to get help for a sick body. we left the forests and plains tens of thousands of years ago…it is no longer a time for people to suffer mental and physical anguish and death because they were born in the wrong place, wrong time. our insurance companies are loyal only to the dollar, not our health…i don’t pretend to be an economist, or to understand the federal budget..but other countries have managed it just fine..other countries who may have they priorities straight.
imagine you yourself were middle-upper management at an auto maker in detroit. you worked hard all your life to get there. the auto industry buckles because those in charge of all that money are irresponsible at best. you are out of a job.(unless the government steps in to save you from forces out side your control). how rich are you? how long until you can’t even afford to buy insurance? individual liberty is a silly notion we use to make ourselves feel good about accumulated wealth. we are either subject to the government or the inhuman “invisible hand” of capitalism(sanctioned by said government). i’d prefer a sensible use of both if i have to experience either.

smitty09/02 11:54 AM

These forms of protest are ineffective. Ad hominem attacks just undermine the debate.

thomas09/02 11:58 AM

agreed.

Betsy09/02 01:07 PM

<<My experience that some government programs are often expensive and very poorly administered.>>

Those terms precisely describe how health insurance companies operate. They get more expensive every year; and since they don’t actually provide any services, the way they can make money is by denying care. So they are intermediaries that neither provide service nor create value; they only add administrative costs.

Medicare, on the other hand, works beautifully, and has tiny administrative costs (2%). Medicare for all!

Small Biz09/02 01:09 PM

I own a small business that pays 100% of the health insurance premiums for 9 employees and the costs keep rising and rising. It is unsustainable. If I was an employee, I wouldn’t want to be tied to my employer by my health. The free market doesn’t work with health care. We have reps from Blue Cross and other companies call all regularly to quote for our business and when they find out an employee has an existing condition, we never hear from them again. The current system is total bullshit and an embarrassment for our county. There is a movement for employers to scale back coverage in order to motivate employees to work for reform. It shouldn’t have to come to that.

Chase09/02 01:22 PM

The Billionaires have a clear and simple message: the U.S. does not have universal, affordable health care because there is a small, but powerful group of people who are making a lot of money off of the current system.

Entrenched interests have been preventing reform for decades (they first opposed it in 1948 when Truman tried to create a system). Their hold on power is the chief reason why why we spend twice as much per capita on health care, leave 1/6th of the population uninsured, and get such poor health results (#37 according to the World Health Organization).

Let’s get the focus off of right-wing generated lies about what a government plan could do to your Mom and Dad (a government after all that is elected by all of us and is charged with preserving the public interest) and onto what the private system is doing RIGHT NOW to all of us: rationing our care, denying insurance to millions, and charging us an arm and a leg (literally!).

If the Billionaires “ad hominem” attacks are so ineffective, please tell me a better way to make this crucial point.

Hmmm. Perhaps we should kindly ask the wise and experienced CEOs of the pharmaceutical companies and HMOs to make health care affordable, cover people with so-called “pre-existing conditions,” and stop cutting off coverage to the chronically ill? I’m sure they’d be all about that.

Lew09/02 03:15 PM

I keep hearing all these complaints about health insurance providers making all this money. But when I do some industry research, I find that the health insurance industry averages about a 4% profit margin. That’s okay, but nothing offensive (Apple usually sees profit margins somewhere in the high teens each time they release a new I-Pod). Meanwhile, major durg manufacturers are currently averaging a 16% profit margin. Why are we working so hard to create competition amongst the health insurance providers when drug makers are the ones making all the money?

thomas09/02 03:42 PM

because they do such a lousy job. they slight those who are supposedly covered, refuse to cover those who need it most, and they certainly don’t provide for those who simply cannot afford. you’re right about pharm companies, but it’s not about who’s making the bigger of the big bucks. we need health care to maintain our health and heal us when we are sick just like we need police to uphold laws and assist in serving justice when they are broken. cell phone companies can’t even follow through on a battery warranty, why should i expect a private insurer to do the right thing when i am ill??

Janet09/02 04:08 PM

Well said Thomas!
I watched the billionaires and found them amusing, but better was how angry they made a man with a bull horn who asked them how much they got paid to do what they were doing. Ironic, right?

Ashe09/02 08:36 PM

The thing that bugs me is all these “Christian” Conservatives who will go to town halls and say that they shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s healthcare. I don’t recall Jesus ever charging someone to heal them. In fact, he was very critical of the wealthy and told them they should give their wealth to the poor if they wanted to get into heaven.

The fact is, if the Federal Government ran all healthcare coverage in the US like it runs Medicare, it would end up SAVING the average US worker around $2-3000 a year! Your company provided health insurance comes partially out of your pay each month, after all. It is subsidized by your employer to some degree (depending on your employer and the plans provided), but you DO have to pay something for it.

Realistically, if we were going to share the burden of cost evenly throughout the population, every employed person’s taxes would need to increase by around $2000 a year (not assuming a more progressive tax increase structure weighed more heavily toward the rich). But that would end up being a net gain per employed person since they would no longer have to pay out for insurance which is costing them around $4000 a year. That $2000 increase per person would raise $350 BILLION dollars a year toward the costs of health coverage. And since 80% of a person’s TOTAL healthcare costs are typically accrued during the last 5 years of their life, anyway, that additional funding could probably allow the system to remain solvent for quite some to come.

Granted, I’m no economist. I’m actually studying to be a psychologist. However, those back of envelope calculations seem to be feasible given the typical costs of private health insurance versus Medicare expenditures.

jandrews09/03 05:25 AM

A ‘psychologist’ in training spouting economic ‘theory’...

Anyone think Kenan-Flagler or Fuqua will be calling for a new ‘economic policy’ professor position?

Small Biz09/03 05:33 AM

“Anyone think Kenan-Flagler or Fuqua will be calling for a new ‘economic policy’ professor position”

UNC is already offering their students the “public option” for health insurance. Because it is a smart business decision, as well as a smart public policy.

Fraiser Lyon09/03 05:36 AM

The one thing that is missing in this debate is that the Government as a whole does very little right so why would we want to trust them with our lives? Katrina - knock up job there… VA healthcare - pretty awesome except for when they almost had to shut down walter reed for poor conditions of the hospital, IRS code - makes understanding my health insurance policy seem like a breeze. Let’s get serious. We can figure out a lot of ways to reduce costs and provide more coverage to people who need it - like opening up the insurance markets so that you can buy across state lines. Giving health care to the poor and needy through Government susidies but making those individuals pay back a percentage of what they cost taxpayers if and when their economic situation changes. We should realize that health care can never be a government giving right. It is a service. In fact you take a look at our constitution there is not one single positive right in it, all restrictions, things the government can’t do.

Small Biz09/03 05:55 AM

The government does plenty right. People are very satisfied with Medicare and VA health care. There is greater customer satisfaction for both than with private insurance companies. I would like the right to purchase Medicare coverage now, before I reach 65 because I see it as the best option in the market. You’ll notice all these conservatives fighting reform using the slogan that it “will destroy Medicare”. They’ve been actively trying to destroy Medicare for decades. The Republican budgets underfund government programs and run up severe debt, in service to big business lobbying. Health care just does not work as a “for profit” enterprise. If you don’t want the government as the provider, than it needs to be regulated the way utilities are regulated. We all saw how well Enron and the private markets managed electrical distribution under deregulation. I’m happy to have the government handle the roads, public transportation, health care, defense, environmental regulations. We’re still recovering from a severe example of what occurs when people trust too much in the “free market” have too much distrust for government regulation and oversight.

Betsy09/03 06:55 AM

<<In fact you take a look at our constitution there is not one single positive right in it, all restrictions, things the government can’t do>>

Wrong. The Constitution is full of statements of affirmative rights. Just take a look at Amendments 1 through 24, for example.
. Anyway, the Constitution does not ‘give’ any rights. In our constitutional system, rights are naturally endowed to humans by their Creator, not given by a government.
. That’s why our Constitution is full of statements about what rights cannot be abridged.
. Be good to start by reading the document, if wishing to discuss it.

Clint09/03 09:17 AM

At the most basic level, we’re really asking who we want to ration our health care - a government that was founded to protect the populace and is answerable to the populace, or corporations that were founded to make a profit and are answerable only to their shareholders. I don’t want private security firms policing my streets any more than I want the government making my shoes. Inserting a profit-driven corporation between me and my doctor can not possibly provide me with the best health care because that corporation can make more profit if I get less-than-stellar health care.

Fraiser Lyon09/03 09:35 AM

Betsy,

Name one positive right in the constitution bestowed upon individuals? And in fact you are wrong that there are no rights given to individuals in the constitution. If we are talking about rights bestowed upon by the creator then you are only talking about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which in the text of that time never included health care.

I beg you to please read the constitution and think about what it is actually saying. There is not a single positive individual right in the constitution barring perhaps trial by jury. Nothing in the constitution requires our government to do anything beyond the jury, the rest are all restrictions on what the government cannot do. For exampel there is no constitutional basis that the Government must provide education(although such provision does exist in the State Constitution - I encourage you to read the San Antonio School District Case and the North Carolina Leandro case to understand the difference between these two).

I think before you tell a person to re-read a document you might consider that your own understanding of it is a bit clouded by how you interpret what it is saying and not what it actually does say and what those words actually mean. For examples of why you are wrong please see below

First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendemnt - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Small Biz09/03 09:45 AM

Yes, Frazier, I am confused as to why the same people that oppose health care reform, which is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, did not seem to care that the Bush administration was directly violating core principles of the document: right to trial by jury, and protection form unreasonable search and seizure. It is bizarre.

Fraiser Lyon09/03 10:10 AM

I agree all American citizens should be given a right to trial, due process, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. I would disagree that those rights are owed to individuls that operate outside of our Union just as much as I would disagree that US citizens should be subjected to say speech limitations imposed on French Citizens through its constitution.

Small Biz09/03 10:24 AM

Frazier, are you defending the warrantless surveillance of the Bush years, and the policies of extraordinary rendition and torture in secret US run prisons as a proper role of government under the constitution? And are you arguing that point while arguing that organizing health care for its citizens is not in the spirit of the document?

Fraiser Lyon09/03 10:40 AM

I am arguing that if you are an American citizen you have a constitutional right to due process and a trial as afforded under the constitution, which as interpreted by the Supreme Court would include the reading of your miranda rights upon arrest.

What I am arguing is that if you are young man fighting in Iraq, and are not a member of an organized army (basically an insurgent or jihadist) against the United States army and are arrested you are guranteed not guranteed due process, a trial, free speech or the right to bear arms because the United States Constitution is a legal document that confers no rights upon you. Despite many claims, we are a Republic not an empire and our constitution bestows no rights to individuals that are not citizens of our nation. I think the same should apply to say German forces during WWII that could have paddled ashore after being released from a Uboat. I would not expect in that situation that upon capture they would be given all rights under the constitution. The Geneva convention is another issue and I think rational minds can disagree about whether it applies to non uniformed combatants ( I happen to think it doesn’t and it is very risky for it to). Regardless this all started because someone said that Health Care is some sort of right and I believe it is a service. If it is the other way around where does it stop? If health care is a right, then does the government have to provide you with transportation to access it? How much of a right is it? Is the right to be seen by the top neurosurgeon at Duke if you have brain cancer or just to be seen by your local doctor in say Wilson? these are questions that are tough to answer and make me believe that government run health care is simply not practicle. Just from a cost benefit analysis it is likely that more people will be hurt than helped because a vast majority of people are happy with the health care they receive and will likely get less care under a government system. Not to mention the fact that the US is the driver of inovation and research in the medical field, which is no coincidence that our health care is more expensive since basically other countires simply free ride on us.

Small Biz09/03 11:39 AM

So, that’s a yes?

jeremy09/03 01:37 PM

okay, so as far as the argument is concerned with: should combatant soldiers against our country receive the same rights that we do.. as much as a sour taste it makes to say, yes they should. i think that naturally as humans we wish ill on those against us, but that being said, if we are a country that “polices” the entire planet (which we are) then everyone should be treated equally. if not, then we are just crooked cops abusing the laws that we are trying to enforce. how does it look to the world if we go after saddam (who had no wmd’s and no connection to bin laden) for “torturing and attacking his own people”, and then attack his people (which we have done) and then torture those we capture (which we have also done)? how can we enforce laws that we are not going to follow? and the argument for healthcare has been skewed a bit i think. what the left is trying to do is be able to offer a public option for general practitioners. of course if a person has brain cancer, then the specialist will be on the same pedestal that they have always been on, keeping money flowing in from the people who prefer private options or who are in need of that specialist. it’s just general healthcare that is the main concern to keep people out of the e.r.‘s for a bump, bruise, or cold. that is what drives the cost up for everyone, people who cannot afford the general care and go to the hospital for simple procedures and leave the rest of us to foot the bill for a larger sum. have you ever spent the night at the hospital? those rooms suck and they are pricier than 5 star hotel rooms, like 10-20 times pricier. this is because demand is so high, because the hospitals are full, because millions of people don’t have regular doctors.

luke09/03 04:08 PM

I’m just one guy talking, but I wouldn’t mind my taxes going up if it meant everyone could go to the doctor…..

Fraiser Lyon09/03 05:08 PM

Small Biz you should learn to read more critically, because nothing in my answer was a yes to your loaded question. But if I must say it again, Non US citizens don’t deserve US constitutional rights. The converse to that is that non US citizen don’t deserve French or Thai or Ugandan constitutional rights. Rendition is another question but it has nothing to do with the constitution and due process. Do we really want American troops saying to the enemy you have the right to remain silent? That I’m sorry to say is just dumb.

Betsy09/03 05:27 PM

Fraiser, sweetie pie, you really don’t want to debate constitutional law with me.

Fraiser Lyon09/03 06:00 PM

I’m no academic snob but I’m fairly certain, based on your last couple of posts that you have far less formal “book learning” regarding the constitution than I do. That not withstanding, you’ve said nothing to discount one thing in my post and I provided clear evidence that your post contained errors regarding what is actually in the constitution.

Clint09/04 03:49 AM

Frasier-
If it’s true that “a vast majority of people are happy with the health care they receive” then what’s wrong with letting them keep the health care they have, and providing health care for American citizens who are not happy with theirs or who have none? The tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford health care due to exorbitant health insurance rates would then become more stable and thus more productive members of society. As stated by others, we are already paying for their emergency treatments through increased health care rates, so organizing and providing for their health care would actually save us all money.

arthurb309/04 08:56 AM

Ditto Clint.

Fraiser Lyon09/04 01:38 PM

What’s wrong with making those that cant’ afford health care work for the country that provides it too them? Not the full cost, but let’s say if you can’t afford health care and you want the Government option you need to work two Saturdays a months (or whatever your off days are) doing whatever needs to be done, mowing grass, filing paperwork at school, picking up trash in the road or whatever else we can think of. That’s something I could stomach. I think your premise that it will save us money is a wrong and I think you would have a hard time coming up with data to prove it, but I just simply have a real problem with the idea of just giving away anything and making others pay for it. I work hard. I’ve worked hard all my life. I don’t expect people to give me anything, why should I be expected to give people anything. Not to say I don’t believe in charity - I strongly believe in it, but I hate the idea of sending money to the government where a large sum of it will go to administrative costs and a very small sum would go to health care. We’d be much better off if the IRS forced us simply to write a check to a private insurance company to insure a person than we would creating a large “public option” the other problem is that it is pretty clear to me that a public option cannot co-exist with private insurance. One example - one of the biggest reasons that private insurance costs so much is that Hospitals, Doctors, and health care workers are forced to take a loss to serve Medicaid and Medicare patients, they make that loss up on us. If we are essentially become Medicare or Medicaid patients, which a single payor system would do, the health care industry simply could not afford to provide people who are currently covered with the services we currently receive. That is clearly the case in Canada and England where people are highly dissatisfied with their system. The problem with a public/private system is that more and more people would be using a system similar to Medicare and Medicaid meaning health care providers would experience higher losses. That might be fine for small physicians that could refuse to serve these people and only serve private pay individuals but hospitals can’t do that. What you will then see is that critical care will fall off dramaticall or else the price of critical care for those privately insured will skyrocket even more than it is now. In the end a vast majority of covered individuals will have to join the public system. When enough do, the only way you can fund it will be tax people more - a great deal more. The outcomes overall might be better and true, European nations have a one year advantage over us in life expectancy, but that is the aggregate. As an individual I would hate to be told, as they do in England, that I simply can’t get a service I needed because the government has determined that it is not needed. Sure insurance companies do that all the time now, but if we didn’t have the regulations that we do in place now and you could actually have a nation-wide market for health insurance, you could at least shop around. If its Uncle Sam there will be no shopping because what he says go.

I work in the health care field. I see the profit statements, I talk to the government regulators, I see them take steps to cut costs that really legitimatly hurt needy people because the the Secretary has been told by Congress or the General Assembly to cut the budget. I hate that they are in that position but I would hate even more if we were all in that position. I don’t doubt that a lot of hard working people struggle to get health care, I just think it is a fools errand to force everyone to level down to take care of these people. There are things we can do for sure to make it better but this story is about a group that supports a government option. If the problem is that insurance companies can do what they want and charge what they want (essentially a monopoly) I see know reason why the solution should be to get rid of them for an even bigger, even more powerful monopoly. Call me a cynic but there are very very few things that a room full of government officials do well, not only in this country but throughout history. Free markets and free people are what made this country what it is, I see no reason to abandon that now.

Andre P. Nure09/05 05:48 AM

All I can say is how glad I was to have taken time from my hectic polo schedule to come to Raleigh last Saturday and muke the rake, or whatever it is those lobbyists that work for me do.
Us upstairs have known for eons that once the debate devolves to dogma and the rhetoric revolves around the role of government, we’ve won.
We’ve managed to, quickly and quite cheaply thanks to our little performance Saturday, mold you peons from a public focused on healthcare reform into a bickering little bunch of Enlighten-esque pontificateurs.
Checkmate!

jeremy09/05 06:53 AM

something smells familiar here..andre are you from itb?

Clint09/08 10:04 AM

I just wish Republicans would let go of Reagan and try governing in a positive and beneficial way for a change. The self-fulfilling prophecy of “Government doesn’t work- elect me and I’ll prove it” only degrades and will eventually destroy everything this country represents.

And by the way- a true “free market” can only exist in anarchy. Otherwise there must be some government creating rules and regulations for the marketplace to ensure that citizen’s rights - you know, life and liberty - aren’t abridged for the profit of an unscrupulous few.

AberZombie09/09 06:12 AM

after reading all the verbose passages by Frazier, I’m tempted to say “filibuster”

Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. Before posting we ask that you read our Comment Policy and we invite you to register with our site. If you want to keep up with the news on our blog, subscribe to the RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.

Brittain Wednesday, September 02, 2009