Republicans Just Granted Themselves Special Status In Their Latest Healthcare Bill
 

By Rika Christensen on April 26, 2017 10:38 am ·
If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway. The latest iteration of their ridiculous healthcare plan will allow states to decide whether insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, because of course it does, but it also contains a brand-new amendment that’s patently disgusting.

It carves an exemption out for members of Congress and their staffs. Insurers would still be required to provide coverage for them regardless of pre-existing conditions. Vox confirmed it last night:

“A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping these Obamacare regulations.”

But don’t Republicans hate Obamacare? Well, their relationship with Obamacare is actually considerably more complex than we tend to give it credit for. Contrary to popular belief, we taxpayers don’t subsidize Congress’ health insurance the way many people think. In fact, we never did. Until 2013, they were covered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, which is a health insurance marketplace where they (and every other federal employee) purchase health insurance with all the same bull**** as everyone else, and have their premiums taken out of their paychecks.

The Office of Personnel Management contributes to each employee’s premium, but where private sector employers cover an average of 83 percent of their employees’ premiums (or 72 percent for family plans), OPM covers 72 to 75 percent, whichever is less depending on a variety of factors, across the board.

In 2013, all of Congress was kicked off of FEHB thanks to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). He proposed an amendment to the ACA that would require all members of Congress to purchase health insurance through the exchanges, and for their staffs under the small business provision.

So that’s what they’ve been doing for health insurance for the last four years. Where their own lives are concerned, Obamacare’s popular provisions are good things. Where the rest of the country is concerned, though, well, we all know how they feel about the rest of us. The prohibition on denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions is one of the most popular provisions and they want to gut it.

For everyone but themselves.

Can they get any more obvious about where their true priorities lie?

"If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway."

You CANNOT cover people with $ multi-thousand a month in healthcare costs for LESS than what they cost. You SHOULDN'T force a company to insure ANYONE at a loss.

Let me explain it in a way you may understand and relate to...

You're at Publix shopping...you fill up your cart and get in line to pay. By coincidence...there's a lady in front of you with the SAME stuff in her cart! She gets rung up...She pays $53. It's your turn...your bill comes to $106. You're livid! WHY is your bill so much higher? The cashier informs you that the first lady was "poor" and that is all she could afford for food...you're rich and you must subsidize her by paying your share and hers.

THAT is what insurance for preexisting conditions does too...they "use" $5,000 a month in services, only pay $1,000 in insurance premiums, and WE get to cover the rest with higher premiums. ALL those raises to insurance premiums you've been hearing about...that is to cover the poor who cost more than they pay.

That's a good way of explaining it. :thumbup:

First of all, Speaker Ryan, Sen Leader McConnell and President Trump have all stated that they wanted to keep the pre-existing conditions in their plan. Whatever Rika Christensen is talking about is not that plan.

Secondly, no one has been granted anything. Even if any of this is true, this is one amendment to a bill written by one congressman. The bill still has to be marked up, voted on and sent to the Senate. A lot can happen in the process.

Thirdly, Rika Christensen is an ultra liberal actress who writes (or makes stuff up) about republicans and conservatives, she feels that problems can be solved by groups of people that don't think alike, (as long as none of them have conservative ideas).

You and your old friends will be SOL when it comes to pre-existing conditions and lifetime cap if the Republican health care gets passed. Of course, your children and grandchildren will also be big time losers, too.

I don't know how you can make a statement like that when no one has seen the bill.

I assume that you're just assuming what it will be.

I would disagree on this comparison..... its the standard us against them argument from the Repubs. Any of us on Medicare are NOT subject to preexisting conditions as long as we pick a plan and stay with it!

Before Medicare many of us were covered by plans provided by an employer and those plans did not have preexisting conditions clauses.
However, in the PRIVATE insurance market preexisting conditions started out as reasonable like you couldn't buy insurance one month and get a knee replacement the next. However, preexisting conditions became a way for insurance company to improve their profit margins by refusing coverage for a whole host of conditions. They only wanted to insure the healthy.... reduce their risk exposure.

It got to the point of being ridiculous when this case hit the news

Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage - CBS News

A newborn baby was denied coverage.....

Some insurance coverages have a lifetime maximum of say 1 million dollars which seems plenty except if you contract a life threatening condition which could wipe this sum out quickly.

Hide and watch, though. If the bill gets rejected, guess who will get the blame? President Trump, even though he wants to keep that part.

When my husband had his stroke after surgery (to prevent a stroke), while still working, his long term disability insurance comapny used the pre-existing excuse for denial. Reading the policy, I cannot see where ANYONE would be covered, either. It said, "If you had been seen by a doctor and had any diagnostic tests run, then you have a pre-existing condition." It did not say diagnostic tests for anything specific, just diagnostic tests. Go figure. Don't we all have diagnostic testing every time we see a doctor, even if it is just the blood work? The insurance company was UNUM and has had many lawsuits associated with their insurances. Trust me, he did not have surgery and a stroke just so he could collect one-year of LTD. That was all it would have paid because he could not return to his work, even for one day, and was terminated per company policy. If you could return for just one day, then you would not be automatically terminated.

If I could have him back the way he was before this happened to him, believe me, I would have paid THEM.

...and did YOU vote for :jester:Trump or :crap2:Clinton? Hmmm?

Yes we will...we'll have to be...or the country will be racking up $2 trillion a year in medical costs. Death panels ARE coming...they MUST come...we spend $1 trillion a year paying for people's healthcare. We can't keep doing it.

The bill is already $1 trillion a year in government healthcare costs.

That's 960 monthly payments of over $1,000 a month. Monthly $1,000 payments from birth to 80 years old.

Healthcare is TOO EXPENSIVE to give to everyone at it's current costs.

YEAH, life is too expensive........

You can bet the farm and all the chickens on it that I damned sure didn't vote for Clinton. But since it seems so important to you, I did vote for Trump. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But a vote for anyone else, would have just been a vote for her and no way was I going to be a party to getting her elected.

It would be much easier for all of us, though, if BOTH sides would work as hard at doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing as they are fighting every idea he puts out there. This government is designed to be a government of and for the people, not just certain people like those in Congress that put themselves above the rest of the country. Apparently, they never got the concept of teamwork.

:agree:

Progressives just like making stuff up when it comes to Trump and the Republican Party. Unlike Nancy Pelosi , Republicans are reading what's in the bill and deciding how best to proceed.

In my view the debate is termed "health care"but it is really "insurance coverage" and is placing the carriage in front of the horse.

I say this because if you study the arguments it always returns to what is affordable and not what is the most effective and efficient manner to deliver health care. Focusing on the efficacy of health care pays dividends in reducing costs in the long run

Keep in mind only 2% of the population get their health care through Obama exchanges. Most have employer insurance coverage and/or medicare and medicaid.

Once again we are reminded of Reagan's "the scariest 9 words are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"

The elimination of a pre-existing condition as a basis to deny insurance coverage is problematic. No one would buy a new car already damaged or a house already set afire. Eliminating sound underwriting criteria is the how and why of the housing bubble and the long and deep recession that followed . However we are not speaking of property but human beings and thus there is a manner in subsidizing those in NEED BUT IN NEED TRULY.

Personal Best Regards:

Paul Ryan and Chuck Schumer are both N.F.G. they don't give a rats ass about anybody but themselves. They should be required to have the same rules on their health care as they are trying to put together for the rest of us. Very disrespectful men. High level in charge of so much and just low lifes. When I see either one of these guys speak on the news it gives me chills. Schumer was a level headed get thing done type of guy until he got a job with a little power. He did common sense things to help people before he was elevated. Guess he aspires to bigger things. Who knows. Paul Ryan, just no good, a lying sack of ****. Just a sad situation.

Yes they DO like making stuff up...and twisting things too to mach what they want.

Yes it is...it's about how much healthcare actually costs and how much it needs to be subsidized. A $million in lifetime healthcare costs...costs over $1,000 a month for 80 years.

Healthcare is simply too expensive...EVERYONE in the healthcare industry MUST take a cut. Doctors...what EVERY parent wants their daughter to marry...make too much money. We can't afford their services. They MUST take a cut.

Almost half the population get their healthcare provided/subsidized by the government through medicare/medicaid. Half the population gets a government benefit...and healthcare is a big one. Only 1/3 the population HAS a job and 1/4 of those...only work part time.

His words SHOULD have been: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to steal"

We can't keep doing it...the number in "need" keeps rising and the cost keeps rising too...it's unsustainable...it's ANOTHER bubble that WILL come crashing down. By WANTING too much...by GETTING too much...we are destroying the system.

Are you a picture of health or do you actually get healthcare? If so, then you are in one of the ones in "need" of which you speak. Yes, the number in need keeps rising. What would you have the government do about that? People get sick most of the time through no fault of their own. Sickness is a side-effect of life. Maybe just like the younger ones here dictate about not driving after such and such age, maybe people should just not live after such and such age. Or any age, for that matter, if they have the misfortune to get sick.

As for the doctors making too much money, I guess you think that they should go back to doing everything themselves...no hospitals, no nurses, primitive drugs where if you lived then you lived...otherwise, too bad, and took chickens in return for their services. Who do you think pays the nurses salaries, rents/leases/owns the office, buys the equipment, buys the supplies, pays for the janitorial services? And last, but not least, who pays their outrageous malpractice insurance premiums in order to protect them from the many frivolous lawsuits and the few that are legitimate? Remember, Medicare et. al, only pays what they approve which is far lower than what is billed. What do you think doctors would come out with if they billed what you think they should? Not even enough to pay the bills, much less have any take home pay, that's what. Have you also considered that they do not get 'overtime' pay, yet often have to work outlandish hours just to take care of those ever expensive needy people? Do they get to enjoy every evening at home with their families without work interruption?Did/do you take bottom dollar for whatever your job was? Please show me someone who willing works for less than the job normally pays just so they can avoid being considered greedy by others. I could go on, but if you fail to get the picture.........

We all paid into Medicare all our working lives and continue to pay premiums, so we most certainly are not getting something for nothing. We also have deductibles and co-pays, so once again, we are not getting our care for free. All insurance is 'subsidized' in some form. In private pay, it is by you.

Your post is emotional not logical
 

IN THE REAL WORLD, the US does not deny healthcare to anybody.

People who have nothing to loose-no property, no savings are in fact immune from suits attempting to collect unpaid medical bills. Their bills are a loss to the medical profession
and like any other THEFT, needs to be added to the bills of others. Simple explanation of why you are billed $20 or so for an aspirin.

In the US 80% of all medical care is paid for by either insurance or the government. The system is simply crazy.
There is no reason to ask the price or to ask about whether the ....... is necessary. IF, I SOUND NUTS try it
ask your doctor is it necessary-ask your doctor about less expensive options.

I spent 4 days at the villages hospital. The bill was 50,000. AETNA paid 30,000 COVERING THE BILL IN FULL.
If, I had decided not to pay for insurance, I would have been billed, I would have had to pay TWICE WHAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAYS FOR THE SAME EXACT SERVICE-simple explanation of why you cannot self insure your medical care.

We insist upon the same care for all. Whether they pay for it or not-THIS IS CRAZY.

Under what came to be called OBAMACARE, the US felt a need to invent the wheel. THIS IS CRAZY-they only needed to see how the rest of the industrialized world does it FOR HALF THE COST and the results, while they too bitch about it, the results are about the same as ours, far as life expectancy.

I've read that lawsuits and fear of lawsuits add 30% to our medical costs. Perhaps, a great place to look for cost savings. Only trouble is most of our politicians are attys.

Many of our people-including the OP-think the medical people make too much money so in a lawsuit the reward will be huge. Not necessary because of fault but just due to the concept of take from the rich. YUP, that cost too
will be in your medical bill due the cost of INSURANCE.

THERE ARE NO EASY SOLUTIONS. PEOPLE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO ARGUE WITH THEIR HEART INSTEAD OF THEIR HEAD. FOR THAT MATTER PEOPLE ARGUE WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND SOME DO NOT EVEN REALIZE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

Congress ineffective
 

--Amen to working together! Congress is totally ineffective and too self absorbed in getting their jobs extended. :cus:

You DIDN'T pay enough. Many people use $1million worth of healthcare in their life. That comes out to 960 over $1,000 payments...$1,000 a month for 80 straight years...did you pay that much? You certainly ARE getting a LOT for free...if you didn't pay in full, you got part of it for free.

No it not...it's not subsidized...it's spread risk...some pay more, some pay less than what they end up costing in the end. Healthcare is subsidized by the government to the tune of a $ trillion a year.

Sure there are...government gets out of the health insurance business. You either have insurance or you pay for it or you die. Since when is it governments job to support you from cradle to grave and keep you healthy in the meantime? "Provide for the General Welfare" doesn't mean a replacement for mommy and daddy.

Yep, we paid all our lives into Medicare, but I DO NOT pay any more Medicare premiums. I declined Medicare B because I am not going to pay for something I do not need. I do NOT use Medicare A, even though I paid for it all my working life. I have full coverage private insurance that pays for my health care. Medicare is another FAILED government experiment. All you get for all those years that you put into Medicare is hospitalization. Nothing more. If you want more, you have to continue tp pay more. I consider it a rip off. Medicaid for those that pay NOTHING is better. Medicaid for the lazy is better than Medicare that you worked hard for.

And the ironic part is that Obamacare STOLE almost a trillion bucks to subsidize Medicaid for new enrollees. Or whatever the money was used for. But, we do know it was to subsidize Obamacare, and we do know that WE worked for the money and it is being given away.

Sounds to me like your daddy was a little to hard on you. Didn't your mommy try to protect you ?

Bully for you, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou, that you don't partake of the insurance (yes, it is insurance) you paid for all those years. By the way, Medicare A has a huge deductible every time you are hospitalized, so unless you have a no-deductible supplement, you will still be paying one way or the other. Like the private insurance you describe as being spread out, so is Medicare. Some use more, some use less, or not at all. My brother and his wife both died before they could use any of it of which they had paid. She was not yet 65 and he had just turned 65. Just like your private insurance that you are so proud of, their portion is being spread to those fortunate enough to still live. People die on a daily basis without ever collecting a penny of what they paid. That's why it is INSURANCE, just as your private one is. Hopefully, you will never lose that private insurance that you have, because if you do, you will have to prove insurability to get another or get a supplement to go with your original Medicare (that is surmising that you can even get any of the Medicare you so nobly rejected).

:BigApplause:

Did your brother and wife smoke?
Were they fat ass people?
Did they put on sunblock or tanning oil?
Did they take care of themselves?

That is the part that makes no sense. People live carelessly and then want somebody else to help them.

I am healthy, age 53 male, that is not on any prescriptions, have no health issues, do preventive medical testing (PSA, cholesterol, Colonoscopy, etc) at recommend times.

But my health insurance premiums have increased about 50% over the last 3 years. I am currently at $1350 a month.

That is ridiculous that I have to pay that much so the insurance companies can provide care for some fat ass that smoked way after it was guarenteed to cause health problems. Obammacare sucks! I am sick of giving lazy people money that I worked hard for!!

And to the people worried about pre existing conditions being included...I am sure the insurance company is fine with that, as they can make the premiums so high it would be better for your family if you drove off a cliff.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Well, you voted for Trump. Too bad, truly, about your husband.

However, remember how you voted when the pre-existing conditions clause makes it impossible to get the needed insurance.

Of course it is...white people aren't having kids because children are expensive...UNLESS you're a minority on welfare...then it's an extra few $ hundred a month.

We spent a $ trillion a year already and they're not done yet. $1,000 a month worth of "insurance" as a minimum for everyone is unsustainable.

yes it IS being given away...it's going to the half the population that used to be called the minorities...to be used to buy stuff from the people who own the corporations who buy off the politicians who vote to give the poor money.

Yes, they did take care of themselves, and no they were not fat nor did their lifestyle have anything to do with their deaths. What makes you so righteous that surely it was their fault they became ill and died? My brother was still employed when he died and caring for his sick wife who worked as long as she was able. So now you don't have to worry that any of your precious money was being wasted on them. They didn't have the privilege of using it, anyway.

Do you think that doing all the "right" things you claim you do is going to make you immortal? Boy, are you in for a very rude awakening! Proud and boastful, along with making judgements of people you know absolutely nothing about, only broadcasts your total ignorance and arrogance.

We CANNOT afford to give EVERYONE healthcare equaling $1,000+ a month. We already borrow a $1 trillion a year...can we afford to borrow $2 trillion a year to pay for it? The total costs only go up as the population grows and ages.

The first thing we MUST do is stop trying to save EVERY baby born. Some should be let go. Allowed to naturally die. The ones who will cost many $ millions in their short difficult lives.

Growth in America has stopped with the changing demographics...as seen by the negligent GDP growth the last what....17 years? We haven't had really good growth since 2000. The impetus for growth...white people...are becoming the minority.

funny, they actually save and heal more people per capita at a lower cost in every other country with "socialized" medicine....I guess American lives cost more, but are worth less....

Why the U.S. pays more for health care than the rest of the world | PBS NewsHour

I think you are misunderstanding the comment.
I am simply stating that Medicare is a defective gov business venture. I did NOT "nobly" reject Medicare "B" and supplements. I did not need them. Why pay for something that is redundant. And NO I do not pay deductible. I pay a co-payment via my private insurance. Anyone that thinks that there is something wrong with a person making his own way instead of relying on someone else, has something inherently wrong with them.
You folks can try to convince yourselves (ignorantly) that socialized, gov run health care is great, but there is no proof of that. If you have never lived overseas in socialist countries, you will never understand how bad gov run medicine is. Besides, our country is way too large to sustain the cost of gov run health care. It is hardly functional in small countries. And anyone that tells you how great it is, is lying to you. The only folks that make out in socialist countries are the wealthy that can afford private insurance supplements. Canada, the UK, Germany, etc. all have private insurance supplements available to get the wealthy priority health care.

Funny, EVERY successful country with socialized medicine...is a white country.

America isn't a white country any more...we are half and half...half white, half minority. There is not ONE successful black/brown majority country. We are on the cusp...the direction we move from here WILL determine the future of this country. Will we do what it takes to save America and make it great again? Or will we stand by and let it continue to become a minority majority? And eventually fail...becoming Mexico II.

I did not intend to insult, but see how my words could lead you to believe I was trying to insult. Sorry for not being more clear.

I am not sure how my assumption of why 2 relatively young people (age 65) dying makes me "so righteous"?

The average age for demise is 78 in the US. When 2 people die at age 65, and it was not an fatal accident, then it is usually poor health. I listed the issues that are prevalent contributors to poor health.

No I don't believe taking care of yourself makes you immortal, but not taking care of yourself does increase the chance of health issues significantly. I truly believe "when its your day, its your day"...take that Chinese woman that survived a plane crash only to be run over by a firetruck responding to the crash...

None of your post addresses my health insurance costs and how it is unfair that I should have to pay such a high rate (when I am taking care of myself), just so some lazy POS can get theirs for free and smoke themselves to heart and cancer illness which end up costing us to provide more care...

Possibly a rule that would be a start at addressing it: If they want free health care they can't smoke, can't eat themselves fat, can't do illegal drugs???

Are you kidding? Morbid Obesity is a protected class now...under the ADA. Yes...stuffing your face until you're helpless is a disability entitling you to special perks not given to those with self control.

Before you liberals reply with your...they can't help it...it's glandular...there were NO morbidly obese liberated from the German camps...those RUNNING it maybe...but none of the inmates. You MUST eat a certain amount each day to keep weight on. Fat people lie...they cheat.

Not exactly true! There are people that eat anything and as much as they want and still can't put on weight. Genetics plays a great role. That is a fact. Some meds to treat other illnesses, such as cancer and arthritis cause weight gain no matter what.

There are those which you describe. I will give you that. But you cannot put everyone in the same basket.

There are people who get cancer and never smoked a day in their life. I worked with a guy that died at the ripe old age of 29 who never smoked. He served his country in Vietnam and that may have been his factor. There are babies/children who are stricken with cancer.

And, just so you know, I am not a liberal so don't even go there.

Well the people that do not take care of themselves are needing more health care...and the people that do take care of themselves have to pay for those that smoke and eat themselves sick. Fvck that!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

I do agree with portions of your post but you left out some: tattoos from head to toe, piercings all over, high-dollar sneakers, etc. There are those who do not do any preventive care, either.

As I have said, many people get cancer that has nothing to do with lifestyle or smoking. Many illnesses stem from genetics, including cancer and heart disease. Not all maladies are avoidable. Some people have poor health in spite of all they do. It's called life and luck of the draw.

My sister-in-law had lymphoma at a very young age. That was just the start of her battle with cancer. She and a group of others got together to get some of the laws changed, specifically not being discriminated against for employment because of previous cancer. Remember, people are encouraged to "catch it early so it can be cured and you can go on to lead a normal life". As they fought for, "What is 'normal' about not being able to get a job because you have had cancer?" That has been changed and employers can no longer ask.

My brother died because of complications from surgery. He was attempting to be proactive. So was my husband when he had his stroke following surgery that would give him a chance of avoiding a stroke. They were both attempting to be proactive. Bad things just happen to good people.

As you say, it is not fair that you have to pay such a high rate for those who are not proactive or have none. It has always worked that way and always will. That's exactly what Obamacare does. That just added more to the already strained rolls and punishes those who do buy insurance instead of the other stuff.

By the way, I do apologize for going off on you. That was not fair or nice.

Yes, Medicare does have many problems that are caused by the fact that the government runs it. The concept was excellent until they decided to use it for everything but that for which it was intended. Until then, the interest it generated would have sustained it above and beyond. How would you feel if your private insurance used your monies for everything but insurance and then told you "sorry, we're just about out of money so we need to increase your premiums and cut your benefits"? We often hear about the waste and fraud in Medicare, but the Medicare program itself is the worst offender.

As long as you remain in excellent health, you can change insurance companies. See what happens if you don't remain so and want to change.

The doctors get the blame for having you return time after time for something that could be taken care of at one visit. Nope, not so with Medicare. Medicare will not pay for more than one procedure at a time. Example: If you have two skin cancers that need to be removed, that cannot be done at one time because they will only pay for one. Their explanation: "This procedure was performed at the same time as procedure A." Tell me that this is not wasteful to say nothing of being harder on the patient! Grrr! Not only does it waste Medicare dollars, but also supplemental insurance dollars, which in turn will make supplement premiums rise. Why not just do like private insurance and have a set payment for each procedure which includes one for routine and one for complicated (such as requiring grafting)? There again, doctors cannot just charge you what Medicare will pay because whatever they charge, Medicare will only approve a percentage and then pay 80% of that approval. That's the same thing as your employer saying that he will pay you a salary of say $500 a week, but then will only approve $350 a week and then pay you 80% of that and you could either get the other 20% from some other source or pay him the difference. If you told him that you would take $280 a week then he would only approve 80% of that. Would you go for that? Then why expect doctors to do it? That's why they are able in some instances to charge you less for no insurance or Medicare or procedures not covered by either. (My math may be a little off, but you get the picture.)

One of the points I was trying to make is: You have private insurance, but do you collect on that private insurance or do you just simply say, "Nope, I think I won't. I'll pay for it, but I won't use it." Not everyone has the means to be so selective. We could not afford private insurance even if we wanted it, so we continue to pay our Medicare premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. BTW, go to Mayo. I did and they do not accept Medicare or insurance. They will file for you, and you receive the checks from your Medicare and insurance, and then pay them. Whatever the difference is, you pay that out of your pocket....they do not write-off like those who accept Medicare/Insurance do. Costly, but great care.

Did I mention skinny people who can eat anything and NOT get fat? Did I?

No...I made a FACTUAL statement that ALL people need a certain minimum calorie intake to keep weight on. That NOBODY on a starvation diet...meaning REDUCED caloric intake...STAYS FAT...nobody.

I CAN put EVERYBODY in that basket. Eat 100 calories a day without cheating and tell me how long you stay your current weight.

You're an idiot...I WILL go there.