If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Florida judge that ruled health care overhaul unconstitutional once paid about $1000 for a white baby   (phillyburbs.com) divider line 434
    More: Interesting, health care overhaul, FISA, Republican Proposal, prescription costs, senior judge, federal judges, medications, Medal of Honor recipients  
•       •       •

13865 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2011 at 11:51 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



434 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-01 12:37:55 PM
The funny thing is that Republicans should like the most important provision of HCR.
Low-pay, low-skill workers who have traditionally gone without insurance now will get $8 instead of 10 per hour while their employer pays for health ins., and no longer will they be a burden on the state/system when they show up at an emergency room sick/injured.
The more privileged and financially secure will no longer be paying more to make up for those losses.
Thirty years from now we will look back on the opponents of HCR the same way we look at the opponents of civil rights in the 60s.
 
2011-02-01 12:38:07 PM
I'm wondering when this judge will rule that coastal property owners don't have to buy flood insurance, since that's clearly unconstitutional as well. They should have the right to own property on the beach without being forced to buy this insurance!
 
2011-02-01 12:38:16 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: maxximillian: Has the FDA ever taken a candy bar out of your pie hole?

MugzyBrown: This thread is a competition to see who can come up with the worst false equivalency.

Ha! So true. Plus it's the same thread with the same posters making the same arguments.

The Commerce Clause WAS probably enough authority but we have seen a shifty AWAY from the expansive interpretation during Rehnquist.

The "Gen Welfare" clause was probably authority enough thirty years ago to enact HCR but, again, we've seen a jurisprudential shift towards the earlier, less expansive interpretation.

When this goes to the SCOTUS it will be 5-4 for repeal of mandate, not severed. With Breyer being the swing vote. Again.

But, once the mandate dies the whole thing becomes an even bigger piece of crap.


Honestly, why do you think the commerce clause was enough? That is there to regulate interstate commerce, it is not there to create interstate commerce.
 
2011-02-01 12:38:18 PM

DarnoKonrad: What's the damned difference between regulating lead content and trans-fat content in food?


Trans-fats are delicious. Lead is just so-so.

Thunderpipes: Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash.


These are libbos you're addressing. They don't have cash, checks or credit cards.

They have Magic: The Gathering cards. Not credit cards.
 
2011-02-01 12:38:40 PM

hartzdog: He believes the government cannot force you to do something because it's good for you and those around you.
That doesn't strike me as a particularly right wing or extreme idea.


That's the crazy thing. I don't disagree it'd be better if everyone was forced to buy health insurance. I just don't agree that it's right or constitutional. They're different things.
 
2011-02-01 12:39:12 PM
"If this is constitutional, then Republicans should turn around and mandate all citizens be forced to purchase a gun and a Bible."
-- Ann Coulter

/Quoted for lulz
//Of course, Republicans would end up in a huge shoot-out while debating which translation of the Bible to use. . .
 
2011-02-01 12:39:23 PM

Jester6641: Honest question, is it still capitation if the tax has a floor but varies after that (say $600+ or 2.5% or income, whichever is greatest)?


I'm sure they could make that work with deductions, but probably not worded exactly the way you put it. You'd probably have to tailor it based on Social Security tax paid.

\capitation is Article 1, sec 9, not Amendment 16

Yes, when taking the Census; Sixteenth prohibits them outright.
 
2011-02-01 12:39:48 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: No, it's spot on.

Car insurance is required on the state level.
Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.
Car insurance is only required while driving on public roadways.
Penalties for not having car insurance are levied through fines, not taxes.

They're completely farking different.


There is no mandate to buy auto insurance in my state and it's much cheaper here. Go Figure.
 
2011-02-01 12:40:31 PM

Thunderpipes: To all the people saying you need insurance to use an ER,

Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash. You know this, right?


Heck if you are poor enough you don't need either.

/charity care for those that can't get medicaid
 
2011-02-01 12:40:33 PM

DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: No, what I mean is if you want to ride a bike to work every day but the Government forces you to purchase a car.

If there were millions of bikers on the road causing hundreds of thousands of accidents amounting to trillions of dollars, yea, the Fed could tell you to stop riding bikes on public roads or take a public subsidy to buy a car -- as sure as it can mandate all cars must have seat belts.


I think you're intentionally trying to miss the point.
 
2011-02-01 12:40:51 PM
Are liberals honestly too retarded to understand state vs feds? There are no federal mandates for car insurance and none for public nudity. Those are state regulations. Also, just because a penalty has the same effect as tax plus rebate, they are not the same.

If p implies r and q implies r, it does not mean p and q are equal. Take a logic course morons.
 
2011-02-01 12:41:21 PM

sign_of_Zeta: That's not what he means. What this law sets precedence for is the government forcing you to buy certain food. Congress could pass a law saying we all had to buy 20 pounds of Brussels Sprouts a year. This case could be used as precedence to affirm such a law. What if you don't want to eat them? Tough shiat.




Which is called begging the question, or "assuming the initial conditions."

HCR does NOT mandate the purchase of insurance. It mandates one must be covered. Which includes all public programs at the state and federal level that meet min. requirements -- that are set at the state level regulatory system.

So, no, this law doesn't even come close to forcing you buy brussel sprouts.

It mandates you must, like the FDA, eat safe food and you're complaining the market mostly offers brussel sprouts.

That's not the same thing by a long shot.
 
2011-02-01 12:42:24 PM
Something I have been thinking if this whole health care law is deemed unconstitutional. If SCOTUS says its unconstitutional then:

1. Is Social Security unconstitutional? If the govt can not force me to buy health insurance, then it can not force me to buy a retirement plan.

2. Is Medicare / Medicaid unconstitutional? If the govt can not force me to buy health insurance, then it can not force me to buy this one too.

I hope the Republicans see the Pandora's box they are opening on this one. Someone / some group could easy take this thought and try to push it all the way to SCOTUS. If the court rules that one service can not be a forced on its citizens, then none of them can. Then again, many Republicans want these programs to go away so maybe its their end game plan.
 
2011-02-01 12:42:48 PM

DarnoKonrad: the Fed could tell you to stop riding bikes on public roads or take a public subsidy to buy a car -- as sure as it can mandate all cars must have seat belts.


The Fed could only mandate that cars that are manufactured have seat belts (which falls firmly under interstate commerce). Actually mandating people wear those seatbelts is beyond the Fed's control, and is instead mandated on a state by state basis.
 
2011-02-01 12:42:50 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: They have Magic: The Gathering cards. Not credit cards.


Bullsh*t. I've got my PETA credit card:
i291.photobucket.com
 
2011-02-01 12:43:53 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Thunderpipes: Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash. You know this, right?

And yet many people don't pay at all.

You know who pays for them? You do. And you have been for years.

Don't you want these people to take responsibility for their healthcare and stop leeching off you?


How the hell will this bill do that? It will actually increase my costs, and give even more free health care to those who don't pay now. How is giving more free stuff to people "making them take responsibility for their health care"?

You really think 32 million (or whatever the latest number is) Americans are all of a sudden going to start paying for their own health care?

Besides the semantics and pushy crap, people like me want to see something that really fixes the problems. Fraud (90 billion a year alone in medicare fraud), costs ($4300 for an MRI? Really?), malpractice insurance and lawsuits, and most of all, poor people having kids without thinking about money.

Obamacare does nothing to help any of this. It punishes me by increasing my family's health care costs. It will increase the deficit drastically. Why would I want this?

We already have too small a percentage of Americans paying all the bills. This just shrinks that number even more and shifts the costs to those remaining.
 
2011-02-01 12:43:54 PM

sign_of_Zeta: DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: No, what I mean is if you want to ride a bike to work every day but the Government forces you to purchase a car.

If there were millions of bikers on the road causing hundreds of thousands of accidents amounting to trillions of dollars, yea, the Fed could tell you to stop riding bikes on public roads or take a public subsidy to buy a car -- as sure as it can mandate all cars must have seat belts.

I think you're intentionally trying to miss the point.




No you are. It's called compelling interest. You keep trying to equate *any situation* with one that amounts to 1/6th of GDP.

Some hypothetical about cars is not the same thing as the real costs of health care on the economy -- an economy congress has the explicit power to regulate.
 
2011-02-01 12:44:36 PM

Thunderpipes: Honestly, why do you think the commerce clause was enough?


There is a huge compendium of cases where the pre-Rehnquist Court allowed the Commerce clause to be, ahem, "expanded" mostly to effectuate the civil rights cause but also to promote the occupational, highway and food safety legislation that marked the sixties. Heart of ATL, Ollies BBQ, spring to mind. Contrast with Lopez.
 
2011-02-01 12:45:43 PM

DarnoKonrad: No you are. It's called compelling interest. You keep trying to equate *any situation* with one that amounts to 1/6th of GDP.

Some hypothetical about cars is not the same thing as the real costs of health care on the economy -- an economy congress has the explicit power to regulate.


It only explicitly has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Again, can you tell me how my personal choice to have insurance is applicable to the interstate commerce clause?
 
2011-02-01 12:45:49 PM
I fail to understand how for the first time in several decades, Judge Vinson saw justification to throw out the entire law instead of just the portion he ruled unconstitutional.
 
2011-02-01 12:46:18 PM

Thunderpipes: How the hell will this bill do that? It will actually increase my costs, and give even more free health care to those who don't pay now. How is giving more free stuff to people "making them take responsibility for their health care"?

You really think 32 million (or whatever the latest number is) Americans are all of a sudden going to start paying for their own health care?


We already pay for their healthcare. Except they get it in the most inefficient way possible.
 
2011-02-01 12:46:37 PM

MyRandomName: Are liberals honestly too retarded to understand state vs feds? There are no federal mandates for car insurance and none for public nudity. Those are state regulations. Also, just because a penalty has the same effect as tax plus rebate, they are not the same.

If p implies r and q implies r, it does not mean p and q are equal. Take a logic course morons.


In Vermont you can be in public naked all you want. The law only states you have to leave your home that way, can't strip in public.
 
2011-02-01 12:46:52 PM

Hobodeluxe: the argument that if they did this then the govt could require you to buy clothes or food is preposterous.
very reaching. this judge is out of touch with the common man.


If you do not feed your children, they are taken away from you. If you do not feed yourself and the proper people catch wind of this in time, you can be committed to a mental health facility and force-fed for being a danger to yourself.

If you do not clothe your children, they will be taken from you. If you are not clothed in public, you will be arrested in many places for indecent exposure.

I'd say we're already have a de facto requirement to buy food and clothing today.
 
2011-02-01 12:47:03 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: the Fed could tell you to stop riding bikes on public roads or take a public subsidy to buy a car -- as sure as it can mandate all cars must have seat belts.

The Fed could only mandate that cars that are manufactured have seat belts (which falls firmly under interstate commerce). Actually mandating people wear those seatbelts is beyond the Fed's control, and is instead mandated on a state by state basis.



Congress isn't saying you have to use coverage once you acquire it either. You can still die cheaply at home if you so choose -- if you want to use that analogy.
 
2011-02-01 12:47:18 PM

dogdaze: Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.
/is the Florida tag on vacation today?


Yeah, following the constitution is sure "activism". If want to do health care pass a constitutional amendment. Following the rules sure is hard isn't libtards. Whenever they are enforced you guys always yell racism, sexism, homophobia, islamaphobia or whatever victimhood complex is all the rage.
 
2011-02-01 12:47:23 PM

jntaylor63: Something I have been thinking if this whole health care law is deemed unconstitutional. If SCOTUS says its unconstitutional then:

1. Is Social Security unconstitutional? If the govt can not force me to buy health insurance, then it can not force me to buy a retirement plan.

2. Is Medicare / Medicaid unconstitutional? If the govt can not force me to buy health insurance, then it can not force me to buy this one too.

I hope the Republicans see the Pandora's box they are opening on this one. Someone / some group could easy take this thought and try to push it all the way to SCOTUS. If the court rules that one service can not be a forced on its citizens, then none of them can. Then again, many Republicans want these programs to go away so maybe its their end game plan.


There is one MAJOR difference between PPACA and SS/Medicare.

SS/Medicare relies on the "tax and spend" clause of the Constitution. It taxes workers, and then spends that tax revenue on the program.

PPACA relies on "spend your after tax money on a private product." If it was set up as a payroll tax that serviced a government run insurance program, it would have more constitutional basis. The way it is written is a travesty.
 
2011-02-01 12:48:56 PM

sign_of_Zeta: It only explicitly has the power to regulate interstate commerce.


Let me quote it for you, as you seem to be operating under a common misnomer:

"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

"among" You are among the states.
 
2011-02-01 12:49:24 PM
Now that I know that judge is bad, I love having to pay insurance companies to live!
 
2011-02-01 12:49:53 PM

DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: (they're forcing people to engage in it).

Failure to have insurance is not inaction. It has a calculable economic impact on everybody else. And it's huge.


is it also consitutional for the government to force everyone who buy's a car to buy a gm? declining to buy a gm car has a calcuable economic impact on everyone else in this country. what about forcing everyone to buy $500 worth of shoes this year. the fact that you didn't buy $500 worth of shoes last year had a calculable economic impact on this country.
 
2011-02-01 12:49:56 PM

MikeBoomshadow: I fail to understand how for the first time in several decades, Judge Vinson saw justification to throw out the entire law instead of just the portion he ruled unconstitutional.


The way Congress wrote it, without the entire bill, the rest of it isn't valid.

/DRTFD...well, most of it....was getting sleepy last night.
//Don't agree with it, but, I understand why he did what he did; not nearly as convincing as Judge Hudson's in EDVA.
 
2011-02-01 12:50:58 PM

DarnoKonrad: Congress isn't saying you have to use coverage once you acquire it either. You can still die cheaply at home if you so choose -- if you want to use that analogy.


You brought up an idiotic analogy, used it wrong, and I debunked it. I don't want to use that analogy, but your idiocy needs to be quarantined before it spreads.

DarnoKonrad: "The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"


Like this. "Among" is not "within", much like "with foreign Nations" doesn't mean we can pass laws for other nations.
 
2011-02-01 12:51:05 PM

Fine Varmint: I paid $16.40 for a 7 lb 11 oz baby when I was active military. (do the math for me would ya?)

Shiat I had to do the labor too.


My brother paid $50 for a pair (about 10 lbs total). Next time, go for the volume discount.
 
2011-02-01 12:51:36 PM

YoMammaObama: Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

In fact, the constitution recommends that you add something perfectly reasonable to it. If it is in fact perfectly reasonable you won't have any problem with that amendment process. Then perfectly reasonable = constitutional! Imagine that!


You have to add something perfectly reasonable to something constitutional. But something being perfectly reasonable does not automatically equal constitutionality.
 
2011-02-01 12:52:42 PM

DarnoKonrad: HCR does NOT mandate the purchase of insurance. It mandates one must be covered.


And this. Insurance is not sold across state lines. Risk is not shared across state lines. Interstate commerce does not farking apply.
 
2011-02-01 12:52:59 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: PPACA relies on "spend your after tax money on a private product."


You know that's not true.

A close analogy is the FDA mandates safe food, and you're complaining that most of the safe food to eat *in the market* is turnips -- while the fed might offer some bread -- and a few different menu options among the states.

The law does not say anything about buying particular products.
 
2011-02-01 12:53:32 PM

dittybopper: Lawyer charged us $1,000 to handle our adoption, but that was for a half Asian, half Caucasian child.

Asshole still farked it up, and I had to continue the case pro se or it would have been thrown out by the judge and we would have had to start it all over again.


Hey you could have gotten my cousin's baby for court cost. Well she is half black and you might not have wanted that. The lawyer that got her put her in dance/song classes and put her in overseas commercials. Made dirty money.

i990.photobucket.com

Kid is doing great today..now that she is back with the real family.
 
2011-02-01 12:54:11 PM

Scerpes: Nabb1: That's a pretty good bargain. Dude must have had some good connections.

That was in '54. Baby didn't fetch as much cash then.


I heard there was a boom of babies.
 
2011-02-01 12:54:56 PM

LordJiro: That's why we need single payer


Interestingly enough, single payer may be more likely if PPACA gets struck down.

People aren't going to want to go back to the days where you could get denied because of pre-existing conditions, get your policy retroactively canceled (with no refund) because you didn't disclose teenage acne treatment, get sold an insurance plan with a $10K lifetime maximum benefit, etc.

Medicare's already survived challenges to its constitutionality. Expand its eligibility to everyone (and increase the Medicare tax accordingly), and Bob's your uncle. The bill could probably be less than 10 pages (cue the "OMG 2000 PAGEZ!!!" derpers).

Don't like what Medicare covers? Buy supplemental private insurance (as current Medicare recipients do/can).
 
2011-02-01 12:55:03 PM

MBrady: Geotpf: I still don't see how it is unconstitutional.

Congress has the constitutional power to tax people.

Congress has the constitutional power to give a tax rebate to people who buy certain items from other private indidviduals. (For example, I bought a house in 2009 so I got an eight grand tax rebate.)

Taxing everybody by the amount of the "fine" for not having health insurance (see my first example above) and then giving a tax rebate of equal size of the "fine" to those who buy health insurance (see my second example) amounts to the exact same thing as fining those who don't buy health insurance.

Therefore, it's constitutional to fine people who don't buy health insurance.

Now, this would be different if there was jail time involved, IMHO. But there isn't. It's merely a tax by another name.

So instead of expanding the Medicare system, which is basically what Obamacare is; why not put everyone on the president/congress/supreme court plan? That way, businesses would not have to provide healthcare to employees, and it would get around the constitutionality of the federal mandate of everyone having to purchase healthcare.

Can't do that though because the dems always want to "give the people something," but they don't want to make them equal with those in charge, eh?


it is not an expansion of medicare. in fact they cut medicare. they did expand medicaid significantly though (even though most of the new revenue will flow through pricate insurance companies). did you mean medicaid?
 
2011-02-01 12:55:18 PM
OK, so the GOP clearly has a hard-on for repealing Obamacare, but have they said anything about what they plan to replace it with? Or, are we just going back to where I can get turned down for coverage due to my pre-existing condition?
 
2011-02-01 12:55:55 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: DarnoKonrad: What's the damned difference between regulating lead content and trans-fat content in food?

Trans-fats are delicious. Lead is just so-so.

Thunderpipes: Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash.

These are libbos you're addressing. They don't have cash, checks or credit cards.

They have Magic: The Gathering cards. Not credit cards.


I'm a liberal with credit cards and magic the gathering cards so I'm getting a kick out of your reply.
 
2011-02-01 12:55:59 PM

sprawl15: Interstate commerce


*facepalm*
 
2011-02-01 12:57:31 PM

DarnoKonrad: A close analogy is the FDA mandates safe food


There's the stupid analogies! The FDA regulates safe foods sold across state lines. If you grow/catch/hunt your own food, or choose to starve yourself, there is no regulation to purchase food that the FDA has inspected.

DarnoKonrad: The law does not say anything about buying particular products.

The Constitution

does not say anything about buying particular products, which is why the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.
 
2011-02-01 12:57:59 PM

Bendal: I'm wondering when this judge will rule that coastal property owners don't have to buy flood insurance, since that's clearly unconstitutional as well. They should have the right to own property on the beach without being forced to buy this insurance!


Any chance it is the (Federally protected) bank providing the loan that requires the insurance? You may want to look into NFIP guidelines if you think that the owners are "required" to by law... Cause it's the lenders that require it. And if you don't understand the difference, then you don't understand the law. Or finance. Or home ownership. Pick one or all.
 
2011-02-01 12:58:56 PM

YoMammaObama: Dr Dreidel: YoMammaObama: Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

In fact, the constitution recommends that you add something perfectly reasonable to it. If it is in fact perfectly reasonable you won't have any problem with that amendment process. Then perfectly reasonable = constitutional! Imagine that!

Do we need to add a provision protecting the right of individuals to own guns? No, that's covered by the 2nd.

Ditto free expression (the 1st) and the right to privacy (the 4th).

So it's not necessary to "add" protections to the Constitution that already exist (as decided by the impartial Judiciary).

Right. So since there is no right for the government to mandate commerce (the thing that doesn't exist in the constitution) it should be added if you want it to be "constitutional". Or you can try and pretend that it really is there and we just need Supreme Court Justice Indiana Cage to cover the document in invisible ink to find it for us...


DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: It only explicitly has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Let me quote it for you, as you seem to be operating under a common misnomer:

"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

"among" You are among the states.


Or is health care no longer ZOMG 1/6 of GDP!!!
 
2011-02-01 01:00:20 PM

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: PPACA relies on "spend your after tax money on a private product."

You know that's not true.

A close analogy is the FDA mandates safe food, and you're complaining that most of the safe food to eat *in the market* is turnips -- while the fed might offer some bread -- and a few different menu options among the states.

The law does not say anything about buying particular products.


No, the law states that you must maintain minimum essential coverage from one of a few options.

1. Government sponsored programs:
a. Medicare
b. Medicaid
c. CHIP
d. Tricare
e. Veteran's health care
f. Peace Corps health program

2. Employer sponsored plan
3. Plans in the individual market
4. Grandfathered health plan

What category(s) do you think most Americans fall into?
 
2011-02-01 01:00:41 PM

Freakman: YoMammaObama: Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

In fact, the constitution recommends that you add something perfectly reasonable to it. If it is in fact perfectly reasonable you won't have any problem with that amendment process. Then perfectly reasonable = constitutional! Imagine that!

You have to add something perfectly reasonable to something constitutional. But something being perfectly reasonable does not automatically equal constitutionality.


I couldn't agree more. What you are saying is the very heart of the 9th amendment.

So if you (Not you specifically, the universal "You") believe the constitution should be changed to give everyone heathcare and unicorns and rainbows... GO FOR IT! Nobody is stopping you. But if you want to pretend the right to mandate commerce exists in the constitution, you'll lose. It isn't.
 
2011-02-01 01:00:59 PM

MyRandomName: Are liberals honestly too retarded to understand state vs feds? There are no federal mandates for car insurance and none for public nudity. Those are state regulations.


As a duly self-appointed representative of Liberal America, I'd like to point out that we don't care as much about that distinction as you people.

Some of us actually follow State and local politics, so we know that local governments are usually MORE corrupt and inefficient than State, and likewise State governments are usually more corrupt and inefficient than the Federal government. Something's not necessarily made more or less moral by changing the level of government at which it is implemented.

Some of you seem to have the current USA confused with the CSA or the Articles-of-Confederation-era USA.
 
2011-02-01 01:01:42 PM

sprawl15: If you grow/catch/hunt your own food, or choose to starve yourself, there is no regulation to purchase food that the FDA has inspected.


Indeed, and you are more than welcome to start your own insurance company to cover yourself to comply with the law -- or lobby your state for a program there -- or start the "save the sprawl15" foundation.



sprawl15: The Constitution does not say anything about buying particular products, which is why the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.


derp. The law says you must be covered. That includes many things besides private issuance.
 
2011-02-01 01:02:33 PM

DarnoKonrad: DozeNutz: If they can make you buy health insurance they can make you buy anything.

No they can't. Not everything amounts to 1/6th of GDP. There is a clear public interest involved here. The job of government is to work in the public interest within it's assigned powers.


so what part of Article 1 Section 8 says they have the power to make you buy insurance?
 
Displayed 50 of 434 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report