Half Of US Population Accounts For Only 2.9% Of Healthcare Spending; 1% Responsible For 21.4% Of Expenditures

Tyler Durden's picture

With the topic of peak class polarization once again permeating the airwaves and clogging up NSA servers, and terms like 1% this or that being thrown around for political punchlines and other talking points, one aspect where social inequality has gotten less prominence, yet where the spread between the "1%" and everyone else is perhaps most substantial is in realm of healthcare spending: perhaps the biggest threat to the long-term sustainability of the US debt picture and economy in general. The numbers are stunning.

According to the latest data compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in 2010, just 1% of the population accounted for a whopping 21.4% of total health care expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $87,570. Just below them, 5% of the population accounted for nearly 50% of all healthcare spending. Just as stunning is the "other" side: the lower 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for only 2.8% of the total for 2009 and 2010 respectively. Perhaps in addition to bashing the "1%" of wealth holders, a relatively straightforward and justified exercise in the current political climate, it is time for public attention to also turn to the chronic 1% (and 5%)-ers who are the primary issue when it comes to the debt-funding needed to preserve the US welfare state.

The spending distribution in chart format:

Broken down by age - While the elderly represented 13.3 percent of the overall population, they represented 47.9 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders:

Broken down by sex - While women represented 50.9 percent of the overall population, they represented 61.6 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders:

Broken down by race and ethnicity - Individuals identified as Hispanic and black non-Hispanic single race were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending:

More of the report's findings:

  • In 2009, 1 percent of the population accounted for 21.8 percent of total health care expenditures and 20.5 percent of the population in the top 1 percent retained this ranking in 2009. The bottom half of the expenditure distribution accounted for 2.9 percent of spending in 2009; about three out of four individuals in the bottom 50 percent retained this ranking in 2010.
  • Those who were in the top decile of spenders in both 2009 and 2010 differed by age, race/ethnicity, sex, health status, and insurance coverage (for those under 65) from those who were in the lower half in both years.
  • Those in bottom half of health care spenders were more likely to report excellent health status, while those in the top decile of spenders were more likely to be in fair or poor health relative to the overall population.
  • While 15 percent of persons under age 65 were uninsured for all of 2010, the full year uninsured comprised 26.1 percent of those in the bottom half of spenders for both 2009 and 2010. Only 3.4 percent of those under age 65 who remained in the top decile of spenders in both years were uninsured for all of 2010.
  • Relative to the overall population, those who remained in the top decile of spenders were more likely to be in fair or poor health, elderly, female, non-Hispanic whites and those with public only coverage. Those who remained in the bottom half of spenders were more likely to be in excellent health, children and young adults, men, Hispanics, and the uninsured.

And the full report.

In 2009, 1 percent of the population accounted for 21.8 percent of total health care expenditures, and in 2010, the top 1 percent accounted for 21.4 percent of total expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $87,570. The lower 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for only 2.9 percent and 2.8 percent of the total for 2009 and 2010 respectively. Of those individuals ranked at the top 1 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009 (with a mean expenditure of $90,061), 20.5 percent maintained this ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures.

In both 2009 and 2010, the top 5 percent of the population accounted for nearly 50 percent of health care expenditures. Among those individuals ranked in the top 5 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009 (with a mean expenditure of $40,682), approximately 34 percent retained this ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures. Similarly, the top 10 percent of the population accounted for 65.2 percent of overall health care expenditures in 2009 (with a mean expenditure of $26,767), and 39.7 percent of this subgroup retained this top decile ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures. The data also indicate that a small percentage of the individuals in the top percentiles in 2009 and 2010 had expenditures for only one year because they died, were institutionalized, or were otherwise ineligible for the survey in the subsequent year.

In both 2009 and 2010, the top 30 percent of the population accounted for nearly 90 percent of health care expenditures. Among those individuals ranked in the top 30 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009, 62.6 percent retained this ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures (figure 1). Furthermore, individuals ranked in the top half of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009 accounted for 97 percent of all health care expenditures. Among this population subgroup, 74.9 percent maintained this ranking in 2010. Alternatively, individuals ranked in the bottom half of the health care expenditure distribution accounted for only 2.9 percent of medical expenditures (with a mean expenditure of $236 in 2009). Similar to the experience of the top half of the population based on their medical expenditure rankings, 73.9 percent of those in the lower half of the expenditure distribution retained this classification in 2010.

Given the high concentration of medical expenditures incurred by the top decile of the population ranked by health care spending (65.2 percent), identifying the characteristics of those individuals exhibiting significant reductions in health care spending in a subsequent year is also of interest. Among those ranked in the top decile in 2009 based on their high level of medical expenditures, 29 percent shifted to a ranking in the lower 75 percent of the expenditure distribution in 2010 (data not shown). Individuals ranked in the lower 75 percent of health care spending accounted for only 13.6 percent of all medical expenditures in 2010.

Individuals who were between the ages of 45 and 64 and the elderly (65 and older) were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the top decile of spenders for both 2009 and 2010. While the elderly represented 13.3 percent of the overall population, they represented 47.9 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. For those individuals who remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care expenditures over the two-year span, the elderly represented only 3.1 percent of the population. Alternatively, children (0-17) and young adults (18-29) were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the bottom half of spenders (32.4 percent and 23.5 percent, respectively). In contrast, children and young adults represented only 2.1 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively, of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the first quartile in 2010 were predominantly between the ages of 30 and 64.

Individuals identified as Hispanic and black non-Hispanic single race were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending. While Hispanics represented 16.3 percent of the overall population in 2010, they represented 24.8 percent of those individuals who remained in the bottom 50 percent of spenders (figure 3). For those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders, Hispanics represented only 6.0 percent of the population. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the first quartile in 2010 were more likely to be non-Hispanic whites and other races (74.9 percent) relative to their representation in the overall population (66.6 percent).

Individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders in 2009 and 2010 also differed significantly by sex, compared with those who remained in the lower half of the distribution ranked by medical care expenditures. While women represented 50.9 percent of the overall population, they represented 61.6 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders (figure 4). For those individuals who remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care expenditures over the two-year span, women represented only 43.3 percent of the population. Alternatively, men were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the bottom half of spenders (56.7 percent). In contrast, men represented only 38.4 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the first quartile in 2010 were predominantly female (58.3 percent).

Health status was a particularly salient factor that distinguished those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. Overall, 2.8 percent of the population was reported to be in poor health in 2010, and another 7.8 percent was classified in fair health (figure 5). In contrast, of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders, 20.2 percent were in poor health and another 26.7 percent were in fair health. Furthermore, for those individuals remaining in the bottom half of spenders, only 0.5 percent were reported to be in poor health and 4.1 percent in fair health. Individuals in excellent health were disproportionately represented among those who remained in the lower half of spenders both years (41.2 percent). Alternatively, for those individuals remaining in the top decile of spenders, only 5.2 percent were reported to be in excellent health and 14.5 percent in very good health. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the top quartile in 2010 were predominantly in excellent, very good, or good health (25.8, 34.8, and 23.2 percent, respectively).

Focusing on the under age 65 population, health insurance coverage status also distinguished individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders from their counterparts in the lower half of the distribution. Individuals who were uninsured for all of calendar year 2010 were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending. While 15 percent of the overall population under age 65 was uninsured for all of 2010, the full year uninsured comprised 26.1 percent of all individuals remaining in the bottom half of spenders (figure 6). Alternatively, only 3.4 percent of those under age 65 who remained in the top decile of spenders were uninsured. In addition, while 17.9 percent of the overall population under age 65 had public-only coverage for all of 2009, 32.6 percent of those who remained in the top decile of spenders had public-only coverage.

With respect to poverty status classifications, 36.2 percent of the overall population resided in families or single-person households with high incomes in 2010 (figure 7) and 15.2 percent had incomes at or below the poverty threshold. A lower representation of high income individuals (26.6 percent) and a higher representation of the poor (19.3 percent) were observed among those who remained in the lower half of spenders in both 2009 to 2010.

Source: The Concentration and Persistence in the Level of Health Expenditures over Time: Estimates for the U.S. Population, 2009-2010

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sudden Debt's picture

1% ARE FAT CATS!!

thank god for SOLOdarity...

but on the other hand... now I understand why Obama funded all those battery makers... IT'S WHAT DRIVES AMERICA THESE DAYS!!

DaddyO's picture

Speaking of Zombie Survivor Rules, you need equipment too!

http://zombiesurvivalorlando.com/

DaddyO

NoDebt's picture

Bright side:  Half the population is either healty or at least considerate enough to suffer or die without seeking costly medical attention.

NotApplicable's picture

As in any health thread, I'll promote these two sites for teaching me about health and effortless weight loss.

www.MarksDailyApple.com

www.WheatBellyBlog.com

Since adapting to a grain-free lifestyle, I've shed nearly all of my body fat (nearly 40 lbs) while eating as much real food as I desire. I'm fairly active, but am not a gym rat (despite having a whole universal gym that came with my house).

All in all, I've never felt better as an adult.

SWRichmond's picture

+1 on grain-free, I am moving in that direction but the rest of the family loves their carbs and the house is always full of bread, pasta, cookies, death snack foods, etc.  Meat and cooked veggies for me.  Hard to do, requires extra effort, but worth it. 

Also +1 on never feeling better as an adult.  For me, never feeling better period.  I AM gyming regularly, however. 

I tried "lead by example" for years and years with the family, no joy.  So now as far as that goes they're on their own and I am doing my own health thing.

NotApplicable's picture

Luckily for me, my teenage daughter latched on quickly as she had a whole host of health issues that modern "medicine" failed to alleviate, primarily migranes and other digestive issues.

Even luckier is that she's started her own bakery this spring, selling at the local farmers market, so she's constantly improving her gluten-free baking skills while developing a market for her goods.

My wife was somewhat resistant at first (still has the emergency ramen in the pantry, LOL), but after watching the changes in the two of us, she's coming along (though still falls victim to excessive convenience).

The biggest difference is having to make all of your own foods from scratch in order to assure quality. We've started cooking lots of different stuff all weekend long, then live off of it during the week. Today's lunch is a nice batch of sulphur shelf mushrooms ("chicken of the woods") sauteed with veggies out of my garden.

smlbizman's picture

does that guys cart have the tip assist feature?

snr-moment's picture

Hate to break it to you, but heart disease and cancer are the two leading causes of death in America.  Anything that reduces your chances of getting one......

 

(that's why the anti-tobacco movement failed to put a dent in healthcare costs.  Coronary bypass surgery is expensive too.)

NotApplicable's picture

Both of which are lifestyle driven diseases that are mostly avoidable. Hell, I don't even grow my veggies out in the open since Fukushima happened, but have them under a high-tunnel hoop-house, in an effort to keep them as free of cesium as I can.

Barring some accident/sudden disease, I'm going to be far more healthy at 50 than I ever was at 30.

snr-moment's picture

Cancer's biggest risk factor is age.

Turin Turambar's picture

Agree with you on the grain free, especially wheat.  Since eliminating poison (wheat) from my diet, along with other grains, processed foods, sugars, high fructose corn syrup, et. al.,  3 months ago, and eating real food (organic vegetables, poultry, fish, meat, etc...  low carb, high healthy saturated fats) I've shed 40lbs, eliminated daily aspirin regimen and lipitor, had my skin clear up, never slept better, much sharper mentally and have a lot more energy.  I feel a good 20 years younger.

Here are two books I highly recommend that will change your health/life:

Wheat Belly by Dr. William Davis (preventive cardiologist)

and the recently released

Grain Brain by Dr. David Perlmutter (neurologist)

QuietCorday's picture

Problem I found when I went wheat-free three years ago was the cascade of other dietary/gut-related problems that wheat consumption covered up, which I then had to figure out and eliminate.

For example, I can barely drink alcohol anymore -- and I used to be a big drinker. Stopped eating wheat (or any other grains for that matter) and discovered about a month in that I couldn't tolerate even a couple of glasses of wine or more than a pint of beer. Then about a year into wheat-free, I discovered I couldn't cope with caffeine either.

And on and on it went. If I eat any kind of processed food by mistake, I now get seriously ill within the day. You stop eating wheat and your gut flora changes to the point where you just have to eat very clean.

The benefits are fantastic though. I stopped going grey, I shed over a stone, my hair and nails grow like wildfire ... but it just does not gel with modern existence. I was starving one day at work and bought a sandwich ... it nearly crippled me.   

 

nugjuice's picture

This pretty much sums up what I worry about with going wheat-free.

For the benefits, well, I can't go gray though considering I lost most of my hair by about 25. Also, I don't have much weight to lose because I already lead an active lifestyle and am around 8% BF. My nails growing fast would be more of an annoyance than benefit.

So why should I make the switch? Other than vague promises of 'feeling better' I really haven't seen anything to convince me to make the switch. I almost want to follow the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' mentality.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Every person is different.  Do what works for you.   One thing I DON'T DO, is assume what works for me must work for others, meaning I have no desire to convert or convince.

I remember my cousin trying to tell me to give up meat because of animal cruelty.  I said "So if the cow dies of natural causes, then I can eat it?"

Goner's picture

I know a few people who are doing the same thing you guys are (I cant kick carbs) And one thing they all swear by is kefir. I don't know anything about it really besides it comes in several forms. The kefir milk is kinda like yogurt and not at all appealing to my tastes but the water keifir just tastes like iced tea to me.

This is supposed to have a ton of benefits but the one related to this has to do with the number of strains of good bacteria it introduces (again, I think)

I asked someone who is into this stuff and they provided this as a good starting point

http://www.modernalternativehealth.com/2013/07/25/the-health-benefits-of...

Lux Fiat's picture

Traditional kefir is dairy based, and many sources that seem reliable to me indicate that you should greatly reduce or eliminate dairy.  Can't speak to the water kefir. 

Have you looked into kombucha?  For some, it is an acquired taste at best, but I like it.  GT's is pretty good, or you can be more daring and make it at home, carefully.  Beware, some of the companies jumping onto the kombucha bandwagon (ok, perhaps that's a bit of exaggeration) are trying to make it more soda-like and loading it up with sugar, which sort of defeats the purpose of something that is supposed to aid good health, not sabotage it.

Lux Fiat's picture

Keep promoting.  Reading Gary Taubes' book "Why we get fat" was an eye opener for me, and led me to Mark Sisson, Wheat Belly, Joel Fuhrman, etc.  It blows my mind when I think about the destructiveness to the body of the Standard American Diet.

Had a knee injury that I was told would require surgery.  I gave it time to heal.  Didn't work.  Changed my diet and within 2 months, the improvement was amazing.  I haven't had problems with it in over a year.

While we haven't cut out grains completely, we've reduced them significantly, and switched to non-gmo sources, along with einkorn wheat for pasta.

Hard1's picture

OK, now we can all hate two "one" percents

snr-moment's picture

You know about damned lies and statistics right?

90 % of the cost of taking care of you occurs in the last week of your life.

Obamacare and the drone program are here to take care of the 1% ers

snr-moment's picture

And you'll get there regardless of how fast your mountain bike goes.

papaya's picture

90 % of the cost of taking care of you occurs in the last week of your life.

 

Morphine is that expensive?

 

Whoda thunk.

fallout11's picture

It is not that high, but it is up there. According to Medicare, 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-6747002.html

 

SDShack's picture

Actually, I think there was a study done some years ago, I think by MIT, that showed about 25% of all healthcare costs occur during the last year (end of life) care. That's why 0zer0care has the bureaucrat run Death Panels. It the only way they could justify the wild claims they made when they tried to sell 0zer0care with all the BS about reducing premium costs for everyone. 0zer0 himself alluded to it during the campaign when he replied to that one townhall question about how some 90 yr old grandma wouldn't have gotten her hip replacement, or whatever it was, with 0zer0care. 0zer0's response was something along the lines of "take the pain pill, instead of the surgery." The end result of 0zer0care will be lower life expectancy, few doctors, longer wait times for care, fewer insurance choices with worse coverage, higher costs, and no increase in the number of uninsured. In otherwords, another gigantic government program that will fail at everything it was supposed to do, and spends trillions of taxpayer dollars to accomplish nothing.

CPL's picture

In a zombie scenario the equipment would be lying all over the place, not sure if packing anything would be necessary.

Lux Fiat's picture

Read a fascinating book by Nortin Hadler, a doctor whose premise is that much of our current heroic "healthcare" does little to improve quality of life or longevity, but does an excellent job of transferring wealth from ordinary folks to the medical industry.  Based on existing studies, he claims that 97% of coronary bypass surgeries are essentially useless for patients (but quite lucrative for the medical industry at $500k per pop).  Mammograms are similarly grossly overhyped, and result in overtreatment and hollow "victories" over cancer [don't get me started on the Susan Komen foundation].  If half of what he claims is anywhere close to accurate, then the US could likely half its spending on healthcare, and have similar, if not better, outcomes.

midtowng's picture

This article is written to imply the 1% that use so much health care WANT to be sick.

Steaming_Wookie_Doo's picture

No, but I bet their Dr's want them to be sick. Literal cash cows. For supposedly smart folks, dr's who can't figure out that putting someone on 7-10 daily medications (half of which are to counteract side effects from the first half) might be a little less than sensible...

A lot of stats thrown around, but still not super clear. OK it'd figure that old folks cost more, even moreso with that datum that the last 6 mos of life is where 50% of your lifetime costs are incurred. Having seen some ridiculous efforts made for "goners", I'd believe it. There's also a small but heavy abuser population of drunkard/junkie who uses the ER as their primary sleeping, eating, med clinic. One guy at Highland Hospital (Oakland's county hospital) used to come in nearly every day, costing over $300K for the year. He was into drugs/alcohol, had diabetes, high BP, etc. That $300K was probably worth annual check up and 1 office visit for about 1000 children. These characters will also end up doing this for 5-10 years before their habits finally kill them. So, this is a sticky question: should hospital ERs have the right to turn away these habitual losers?

Also to take up the picture in the article of the grossly obese person in the hoveround. Lordy, why isn't this being penalized to high heaven? 5 min w/some Dr who may hesistantly suggest you should lose a few lbs ain't gonna do it. The Dr takes the easy route of prescribing some BP meds, and he's covered his bases. Maybe we need some rates based on BMI measures (accounting for high muscle mass), rather than a group rating that's obviously penalizing that 50% that are costing us practically nothing. 

A further question would be why does the govt subsidize tobacco and corn syrup producers, tho we know these are incredibly bad for you. Not saying to outlaw it, but people dumb enough to consume it should pay full price. This is the schizophrenia of living in this country, the worst producers and consumers are rewarded, while the hardest working temperate are squeezed further...

spooz's picture

If we had low cost medical clinics run by nurse practitioners in underserved neighborhoods, the ER could steer the junkie there. 

Regarding BMI, the medical establishment has acknowledged its major shortcomings.  Differences in muscle mass and body frame size are not accounted for. Also, overweight and normal weight people have similar morbidity, while underweight and obese people have a higher death rate.

In addition to ending the corn subsidies (and the ethanol mandate) I think taxing sugar to pay for its health impact would be reasonable.

fallout11's picture

True, and cancer chemotherapy comes immediately to mind (which "helps" ~50% of patients and hurts the other ~50%, i.e. a net sum game, and is absolutely useless on stage IV, yet is very costly). Turns out most Americans have cancer cells in their bodies at death (per autopsy reports), yet few actually died from cancer, and many have better qualities of life without treatment.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/doctors-call-stop-chemotherapy-overuse-cut-cancer-costs/story?id=13688585 

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/cancer/to-the-cancer-patient/

TimTom's picture

I mean, isn't that what insurance is? There's a small chance you need to make a major medical expenditure so you pay your premiums. The lucky ones get peace of mind but don't need it. The unlucky ones get subsidized by the lucky ones. No question there are people who abuse the system but saying a certain small percentage accounts for the majority of expenditures over a 2 year period is not novel or particularly useful information.

Nothing but the truth.'s picture

Maybe it's time all the fast food chains paid a chunk toward the healthcare costs.

artless's picture

Why? Is there a "must eat processed fast food shit" mandate of which I am unaware? Are Wendy's workers chasing you down and shoving their burgers down your throat?

Thought not. And that goes for anything else YOU CHOOSE to consume. McDonald's didn't make you the unhealthy fat&lazy jackass you are. You did. It's kinda like being an economic half wit and them blaming it on the books or Kenneth Galbraith or Paul Krugman's columns. If you choose to consume that bullshit and not seek out the obvious truth then you are merely willfully ignorant.

Perhaps we as a nation might try not living off each other and be responsible for our own wants and needs. 50% of all "healthcare" dollars are spent by the government. In other words half of ALL MEDICAL SPENDING is done through theft from one group of people to pay for another.

You good with that? Cause if you are then you're nothing more than part of the problem. Mandating a restauranteur to pay " chunk toward the healthcare costs" is nothing more than theft and it is immoral.

I'm 44. I have not eaten a fast food product in decades. Any half wit can figure out what food is beneficial and what is not. Kudos to the posters that have the wheat thing figured out.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 


Americans think are taught that "effortless" is the path to happiness, when really it is the path to diabetes, hip and knee replacements, bankruptcy, no sex life, and MOAR DEBT!

1) Go run...

Born to Run- A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen by Christopher McDougall $10
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest/dp/03072791...
and a pair of DIY Luna Sandals $60
https://www.lunasandals.com/products/5-diy-sandal-making-kit
For the person that could drop a few pounds and enjoy life more.

2) Eat well...

3) Get off the medications and mind-changing chemicals.


Dr. Engali's picture

Okay. Who the hell junks that? BTW, bow season starts tomorrow Horseman.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Compound, recurve, cross, or long?

Dr. Engali's picture

I have a Hoyt compound as my primary bow, but I also have a Black Widow recurve that I like to use and is my SHTF weapon.

xtop23's picture

+1 for using a Hoyt. Best bow I've ever owned.

2 junks on Horse for recommending healthy food and to exercise?

Wtf.

Uncle Remus's picture

Oh yeah, they're right up there with fiscal and personal responsibility.

Normalcy Bias's picture

The junks are from guilt and jealousy laden nauseated mofo's who just choked down some food whose story from inception to BPA laced paper wrapper reads like War and Peace.

ceilidh_trail's picture

Junks courtesy of the waldo on the hoveround and his buddies.

candyman's picture

Salmon fishing the Sacramento river and seeing the biggest average fish I have ever seen! Not only are the salmon plentiful, but the average size is over 20 pounds, and we’re landing 30-plus pound salmon every week. Waaa hooooo!

xtop23's picture

Fukushima radiation reaching the California waterways.

Precursor to Godzilla. Do they have extra eyes?

crakinshot's picture

God I love Archary. Definatly something I have to get into properly with my son when he is old enough, and give me an excuse to get a decient bow.

DaddyO's picture

Move a little further south and you'd be ahead of the curve...

http://myfwc.com/media/2147435/SeasonDates.pdf

The junks seem to be for no reasons these days, unless they're related to personalities rather than content.

DaddyO

knukles's picture

personality related, mosdef

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Paid trolls?  Trying to spread dissension?  All I know is, they give down arrows because they are afraid they will be ripped a new asshole if they reply!