Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Washington Examiner)   Business owners explain why they're not hiring   (washingtonexaminer.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4284 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 Sep 2012 at 1:04 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 11:40:53 AM  
Not going to click, but I'm going to go with "Because the president is a Democrat and we won't hire till OUR guy is in."

Did I get it?
 
2012-09-14 11:43:14 AM  

unlikely: Not going to click, but I'm going to go with "Because the president is a Democrat and we won't hire till OUR guy is in."

Did I get it?


Not sure, I didn't read the whole thing. I read up until the point they started using math. I hate math. So I closed link.
 
2012-09-14 11:47:21 AM  

Cythraul: unlikely: Not going to click, but I'm going to go with "Because the president is a Democrat and we won't hire till OUR guy is in."

Did I get it?

Not sure, I didn't read the whole thing. I read up until the point they started using math. I hate math. So I closed link.


I'm betting I'm right, and it's a "we're going to hold all of you hostage till you give us the president and tax cuts we want" thing.
 
2012-09-14 11:56:47 AM  

unlikely: Cythraul: unlikely: Not going to click, but I'm going to go with "Because the president is a Democrat and we won't hire till OUR guy is in."

Did I get it?

Not sure, I didn't read the whole thing. I read up until the point they started using math. I hate math. So I closed link.

I'm betting I'm right, and it's a "we're going to hold all of you hostage till you give us the president and tax cuts we want" thing.


because when forced to choose between filthy profits or providing Obamacare to nosepicking employees, the franchise owner prefers not to have to hire a bankruptcy lawyer
 
2012-09-14 12:00:35 PM  
Because they're selfish, partisan pricks. And not people I would want to be working for anyway.
 
2012-09-14 12:04:00 PM  
Barr said he pays 81 percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028 for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a year. Employees pay $995.

That's a hell of a nice guy there.
 
2012-09-14 12:05:38 PM  

EnviroDude: unlikely: Cythraul: unlikely: Not going to click, but I'm going to go with "Because the president is a Democrat and we won't hire till OUR guy is in."

Did I get it?

Not sure, I didn't read the whole thing. I read up until the point they started using math. I hate math. So I closed link.

I'm betting I'm right, and it's a "we're going to hold all of you hostage till you give us the president and tax cuts we want" thing.

because when forced to choose between filthy profits or providing Obamacare to nosepicking employees, the franchise owner prefers not to have to hire a bankruptcy lawyer


So "Because Obamacare and fark the plebs" is half of it.

I still think I get half credit, then.
 
2012-09-14 12:07:23 PM  

unlikely: EnviroDude: unlikely: Cythraul: unlikely: Not going to click, but I'm going to go with "Because the president is a Democrat and we won't hire till OUR guy is in."

Did I get it?

Not sure, I didn't read the whole thing. I read up until the point they started using math. I hate math. So I closed link.

I'm betting I'm right, and it's a "we're going to hold all of you hostage till you give us the president and tax cuts we want" thing.

because when forced to choose between filthy profits or providing Obamacare to nosepicking employees, the franchise owner prefers not to have to hire a bankruptcy lawyer

So "Because Obamacare and fark the plebs" is half of it.

I still think I get half credit, then.


Who needs a healthy workforce? I got profits to make, dammit!

Yeah, this is not counterproductive in the least...
 
2012-09-14 12:09:12 PM  
"THE WHOLE point of obamacare is to destroy the economy."

LOL
 
2012-09-14 12:11:01 PM  

namatad: "THE WHOLE point of obamacare is to destroy the economy."

LOL


No, that's not hyperbolic at all.....
 
2012-09-14 12:11:53 PM  
These aren't "Business Owners" but rather partisan hacks. Everyone knows that when you're farking your employees in the ass -it's okay to give them a little reach around. That's "Obamacare" -the reacharound.
 
2012-09-14 12:12:13 PM  
If only there was some other single payer way to make sure all citizens have health care...
 
2012-09-14 12:21:43 PM  
"Retards mumble in comments"
 
2012-09-14 12:31:56 PM  
Because the sole purpose for a business is to generate profit for the owner(s) not to employ people and not to provide them with healthcare. Employees are required because the owner(s) can't do everything themselves or with machines. They hire labor and compensate the labor at the market rate for their skills and time which can include health insurance benefits.

As for the owner in the example, providing healthcare as mandated by the new law completely obliviates his profit. His best option is to slash employee hours so they don't qualify and to pay the fine for the ones who still would.

This is actually a good thing for the big corporations. The businesses most likely to suffer are the ones that are too big to be exempt but not as big as their well-established competition. The big businesses are less likely to have upstart competitors come in and take their market share, thus boltering the big business hegimony.

Expect to see more of this is the law kicks in. Nobody is going to run a business that doesn't make money (for very long anyway) except the government.
 
2012-09-14 12:32:24 PM  
Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81 percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028 for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a year. Employees pay $995.

Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs.


Letsee. $444,000 for 109 employees is $4073 per employee which, according to the article is what he is paying now.

OK. Fair enough. Maybe he's not paying for 109 employees right now. $129,000 @ 4073 per employee is 31 employees.

Maybe he meant that under Obamacare, he'd have to pay the full 100%. That would mean 109 employees at $995 or $108445.

I know my math sucks, or maybe it's just my fuzzy math that sucks. (or cop math)
 
2012-09-14 01:11:36 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81 percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028 for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a year. Employees pay $995.

Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs.

Letsee. $444,000 for 109 employees is $4073 per employee which, according to the article is what he is paying now.

OK. Fair enough. Maybe he's not paying for 109 employees right now. $129,000 @ 4073 per employee is 31 employees.

Maybe he meant that under Obamacare, he'd have to pay the full 100%. That would mean 109 employees at $995 or $108445.

I know my math sucks, or maybe it's just my fuzzy math that sucks. (or cop math)


You are correct. In the article, the guy says he currently only gives health benefits to 31 of his 109 full-time employees. He is mad that under the new law, he needs to insure the other 78 as well.
 
2012-09-14 01:18:11 PM  

SurfaceTension: If only there was some other single payer way to make sure all citizens have health care...


yeah if you want to get everyone the same horrible coverage. No thank you. How about we try to keep what we have and still help the needy? How you ask? Set up more free clinics and staff them with doctors that are covered under the government's insurance. The doctors could be people trying to work their way out of residence or people who were put though the school on the government's dime. I'm sure there will be some do-gooders that will also be in there as well. Also we could set up a tax credit for anyone with a MD to donate time to the clinics. Either way we can pay them less because the government will be carrying their insurance cost. That will handle the preventative care everyone says that is so great about Obamacare and where they say the saving will come from.
End of life care will be handled the same. Hospice is still covered by Medicare/Medicaid.
As far as the in between goes we need to find some way of bridging the gap. As of right now any can just walk into a hospital and get help. It is currently illegal for hospitals to deny service to anyone that can cross the threshold. This is crushing the healthcare system in this country. Why does it cost 50 for an aspirin? Because only a few people actually pay their hospital bill! The hospital has to find someone to cover the nut
 
2012-09-14 01:19:35 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Maybe he's not paying for 109 employees right now


Maybe.... in fact.... maybe you even quoted the part where the article says as much. Heh.
 
2012-09-14 01:22:45 PM  

FooWho: I_Am_Weasel: Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81 percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028 for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a year. Employees pay $995.

Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs.

Letsee. $444,000 for 109 employees is $4073 per employee which, according to the article is what he is paying now.

OK. Fair enough. Maybe he's not paying for 109 employees right now. $129,000 @ 4073 per employee is 31 employees.

Maybe he meant that under Obamacare, he'd have to pay the full 100%. That would mean 109 employees at $995 or $108445.

I know my math sucks, or maybe it's just my fuzzy math that sucks. (or cop math)

You are correct. In the article, the guy says he currently only gives health benefits to 31 of his 109 full-time employees. He is mad that under the new law, he needs to insure the other 78 as well.


I am not sure that he is made, or making the point that the lowest cost option for him is to not pay for any insurance anymore, pay the fine to the feds, and make his employees buy their own insurance from now on.

I think his point is that the new law will make his employees worse off. The ones who never had insurance before, will be in the same condition they were before, but now 31 employees who used to have health insurance will have nothing.

My fear is that many small businesses will make exactly the same choice.
 
2012-09-14 01:23:24 PM  
Wait. TFA says he'd have to spend half of his profits providing benefits to his employees, and he would only see $444,000 a year profit now.

So the real problem isn't that he won't make a profit. But that he'll only make a half a million dollars a year.

I'm okay with this.
 
2012-09-14 01:24:00 PM  
The guy's clearing $630K/year in profits and not providing health insurance for the 1-in-4 employees that work for him full-time. Fark him, and the entitled, elitist culture of wealth that spawned him.
 
2012-09-14 01:24:32 PM  

weiserfireman: think his point is that the new law will make his employees worse off. The ones who never had insurance before, will be in the same condition they were before, but now 31 employees who used to have health insurance will have nothing.


That's his point. But what he's actually saying is that he's making a conscious choice to make his employees worse off.

Obamacare isn't forcing him to do this. It's what we in the legal world call an "independent intervening actor."
 
2012-09-14 01:25:28 PM  

With simple math the small business folks understood


Bless their little hearts. *snicker*
 
2012-09-14 01:26:01 PM  
FTFAWith simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren't eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and pay the $2,000 per employee fine.

This is insulting to the small business "folk" and this is a code for "I made these numbers up and I'm lying through my teeth"
 
2012-09-14 01:29:18 PM  

unlikely: Not going to click, but I'm going to go with "Because the president is a Democrat and we won't hire till OUR guy is in."

Did I get it?


Agreed, plus greed and all that.

I wonder what they will do when he gets re-elected.
 
2012-09-14 01:34:12 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: SurfaceTension: If only there was some other single payer way to make sure all citizens have health care...

yeah if you want to get everyone the same horrible coverage. No thank you. How about we try to keep what we have and still help the needy? How you ask? Set up more free clinics and staff them with doctors that are covered under the government's insurance. The doctors could be people trying to work their way out of residence or people who were put though the school on the government's dime. I'm sure there will be some do-gooders that will also be in there as well. Also we could set up a tax credit for anyone with a MD to donate time to the clinics. Either way we can pay them less because the government will be carrying their insurance cost. That will handle the preventative care everyone says that is so great about Obamacare and where they say the saving will come from.
End of life care will be handled the same. Hospice is still covered by Medicare/Medicaid.
As far as the in between goes we need to find some way of bridging the gap. As of right now any can just walk into a hospital and get help. It is currently illegal for hospitals to deny service to anyone that can cross the threshold. This is crushing the healthcare system in this country. Why does it cost 50 for an aspirin? Because only a few people actually pay their hospital bill! The hospital has to find someone to cover the nut


That sounds awfully like a public option...
 
2012-09-14 01:36:03 PM  

imontheinternet: The guy's clearing $630K/year in profits and not providing health insurance for the 1-in-4 employees that work for him full-time. Fark him, and the entitled, elitist culture of wealth that spawned him.


From my experience, full time employees at small employers (like the franchise operations mentioned in TFA) that make just above minimum wage many times decline the health insurance because they don't want the premium coming out of their check. I think he said it was $995 a year for the employee, so $38 per check, which to a person making $8/hr is a lot of beer money.
There are probably others that have insurance through a spouse's plan and don't participate. I don't think the guy was saying that he chooses not to offer insurance to most of his full timers that would otherwise be eligible.

Also, the law is stupid setting the fine at only $2k per employee. That's way cheaper than insuring anybody, and business being business a lot of small and not so small companies are going to go that route I'm afraid.

/Would rather see single payer
 
2012-09-14 01:38:31 PM  
Just wondering, is there any study that would tell us how much this guy would have to pay if he were to buy insurance from one of the exchanges?
 
2012-09-14 01:44:01 PM  
Because there is a black man living in the White House and he's not there just to make you feel a little bit less racist. He's actually there to perform a pretty important job.
 
2012-09-14 01:50:57 PM  

imontheinternet: The guy's clearing $630K/year in profits and not providing health insurance for the 1-in-4 employees that work for him full-time. Fark him, and the entitled, elitist culture of wealth that spawned him.


These are KFC/Taco Hell/Pizza Hut jobs.

You are incorrectly stating that all his employees work for him full time. He currently provides healthcare for the ones that do work for him full time.

The point of the article, is that under the law as written it would cost him $4,000 per employee to ensure them, or $2,000 per employee to drop all their coverage and pay the fine. No brainer choice is to drop everybody's healthcare for half the cost.

They also touch on the fack that he can also just slash everybody's hours to under 30 and avoid the $2,000 fine as well.

The best option is to slash the hours for all the cooks and servers to under 30 and drop his management onto the public exchange.

He will probably save on some HR costs since he will no longer have to deal with health benefit issues.
 
2012-09-14 01:53:03 PM  
I guess single payer is the way to go then.
 
2012-09-14 02:00:45 PM  
Today I learned that the average farker sucks at these big scary story problems.
 
2012-09-14 02:01:21 PM  

Tricky Chicken: imontheinternet: The guy's clearing $630K/year in profits and not providing health insurance for the 1-in-4 employees that work for him full-time. Fark him, and the entitled, elitist culture of wealth that spawned him.

These are KFC/Taco Hell/Pizza Hut jobs.

You are incorrectly stating that all his employees work for him full time. He currently provides healthcare for the ones that do work for him full time.

The point of the article, is that under the law as written it would cost him $4,000 per employee to ensure them, or $2,000 per employee to drop all their coverage and pay the fine. No brainer choice is to drop everybody's healthcare for half the cost.

They also touch on the fack that he can also just slash everybody's hours to under 30 and avoid the $2,000 fine as well.

The best option is to slash the hours for all the cooks and servers to under 30 and drop his management onto the public exchange.

He will probably save on some HR costs since he will no longer have to deal with health benefit issues.


No, he says he has 109 full-time employees. He has over 300 total employees. He currently provides health insurance for about 30 employees. So he only provides health benefits for about 1/3 of his full-time work force. The article does not mention why he does not provide benefits for the other 2/3's. Perhaps he offers it to them and they decline it. I somehow doubt this is the case, though, as I believe that an employer is not penalized for an employee who chooses not to take coverage. In that case, the employee is penalized.
 
2012-09-14 02:03:55 PM  
Yeah, smells like bullshiat to me. So...instead of raising the price of a donut by a nickel, you've decided you'll assfark all of your employees so you can keep your current level of profits. Guess what? You deserve to go out of business. Clear out the market for someone with a conscience.

This same exact whine has occurred every time the government has mandated that business do something. OSHA? ERMAGERD, TOO EXPENSIVE! EPA regulations? OH NOES, it's impossible to make a dime! Social security employer contribution? THE SKY IS FALLING! Minimum wage? HOLY SHIAT SOCIALIZMZ!

Cry me a farking river. Assflakes like these people are the reason Obama should, on January 21, 2013, say "OK, Obamacare phase two: single-payer", and sell it as "The Republicans want to cut Medicare, we want to extend it to everyone". How to pay for it? 1) Let the DoD sequestrations happen and 2) remind all the businesses that they won't be paying ANYthing for employee health coverage any more. Can you say serious profit for corporations? And as I'm reminded by the Republicans, that will cause tax revenues to increase, which we can use to pay for single-payer. Then maybe we can join the community of advanced Western societies who understand that you don't screw people over just because they get sick.
 
2012-09-14 02:04:04 PM  

unlikely: Not going to click, but I'm going to go with "Because the president is a Democrat and we won't hire till OUR guy is in."

Did I get it?


Unlikely
 
2012-09-14 02:09:29 PM  

weiserfireman: Letsee. $444,000 for 109 employees is $4073 per employee which, according to the article is what he is paying now.


Why would the cost per employee be the same for 31 employees as 109? Wouldn't the larger pool make the policy cheaper per employee? Shouldn't this guy shop around for a better rate?

The point of the article, is that under the law as written it would cost him $4,000 per employee to ensure them, or $2,000 per employee to drop all their coverage and pay the fine. No brainer choice is to drop everybody's healthcare for half the cost.

So there is money to made insuring people at $2000 per employee? Sounds like something the free market would want to compete for! With cross-state exchanges surely some insurance company will step up and take all that money that's just sitting on the table, right? Sure, it won't be a 30% profit margin, but profit is profit.
Geico, Progressive and a half dozen other insurance companies are currently in a vicious price war for my money. How about the health insurance companies start competing, with the tax fine amount as the slam-dunk sure-sale cost threshold?
 
2012-09-14 02:10:10 PM  

Tricky Chicken: imontheinternet: The guy's clearing $630K/year in profits and not providing health insurance for the 1-in-4 employees that work for him full-time. Fark him, and the entitled, elitist culture of wealth that spawned him.

These are KFC/Taco Hell/Pizza Hut jobs.

You are incorrectly stating that all his employees work for him full time. He currently provides healthcare for the ones that do work for him full time.


From TFA:

Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of those, he provides 30 with health insurance.

That's less than one in three of his full-timers. Sounds to me like he's getting off pretty easy now, and other people's employers are picking up some of that load.

I'm not going to boo-hoo for him, because he's not going to lose money. He just won't make as much as he used to.

That, my friends, is the problem with this country in a nutshell. We have a guy here who's not dealing with much of a burden at all, complaining that he's being crushed.
 
2012-09-14 02:14:09 PM  

gingerjet: FTFAWith simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren't eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and pay the $2,000 per employee fine.

This is insulting to the small business "folk" and this is a code for "I made these numbers up and I'm lying through my teeth"


Correct, he's 'lying by omission', since all of his competitors face the same additional expenses. Jeebus, dude, do what you do when your rent goes up, KFC raises the price of your drumsticks or any other uncontrollable expense crops up: raise your prices 1.5% and carry on.

/small business owner
 
2012-09-14 02:15:56 PM  
"That's less than one in three four"

Fortunately, I can't afford any employees, so I don't have to worry about this.
 
2012-09-14 02:16:22 PM  
SurfaceTension:

If only there was some other single payer way to make sure all citizens have health care...

Got it in twelve this time.

How's this: employers who don't cover full-timers can pay ALL of their own household's medical expenses out of pocket. Every single penny.

And a business with no full-time non-managerial employees will never get a single tax incentive or subsidy from any government entity, local, county and state as well as federal, since the federal government subsidizes so many local, county and state programs.

How's that for starters?
 
2012-09-14 02:17:37 PM  
We provide 100% of healthcare for 100% of our employees, and have for years.

We do this because we are a small company and most of our workforce are men in their 20s. They think they are bulletproof and don't need insurance, so they refuse to pay for it. With a a small amount of employees taking insurance our rates were high due to participation levels. Paying for everyone's not only add bodies to the plan it brought the average age of our insured way down; lowering the premiums twofold. It was actually cheaper to pay 100% of everyone's than 70% of just a few

Funny thing is while we offer 100% paid insurance to all employees usually 10% or so turn it down. Because if DSS finds out the have insurance then they have to provide it to their children.

It's amazing how difficult it has been for us to hire people over the past couple of years. We have been told countless times, when we call an applicant to start work, that they are not interested, as they would rather draw unemployment. Then you have the high rate of turn over with employees that will work for a couple weeks until their pay starts getting garnished for child support and they leave to find another job.

Sometimes it's very disheartening; the ethics and morality of the average modern American worker
 
2012-09-14 02:18:14 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Letsee. $444,000 for 109 employees is $4073 per employee which, according to the article is what he is paying now.

OK. Fair enough. Maybe he's not paying for 109 employees right now. $129,000 @ 4073 per employee is 31 employees.

Maybe he meant that under Obamacare, he'd have to pay the full 100%. That would mean 109 employees at $995 or $108445.

I know my math sucks, or maybe it's just my fuzzy math that sucks. (or cop math)


I love how the business owner and the reporter only see two options: 1. pay a crap-ton of money to put all full-time employees on a 100% Cadillac medical plan, or 2. get rid of healthcare insurance for everyone and pay a fine.

Let's ignore the fact that he could shop for a cheaper plan via the government mandated Health Insurance Exchange, and shop around for a cheaper 60% coverage for all of his employees (termed a 'Bronze' level program by the HIE program). That way all of his full-time employees get health care, at approximately the same cost to the business. 

But it's far easier to blame Obama and ask for a tax cut.
 
2012-09-14 02:18:43 PM  

LibertyHiller: From TFA:

Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of those, he provides 30 with health insurance.


TFA also mentions that many of his full time employees decline insurance because they don't want to pick up their share of the cost.

Which is a bit freaky, because their share of the cost works out to be 20 bucks a month.
 
2012-09-14 02:19:32 PM  

BullBearMS: 20 bucks a month week.


Fixed that for everyone
 
2012-09-14 02:27:15 PM  
My guess is : payroll taxes.

Like many commenters, I DNRTA (yet).
 
kab
2012-09-14 02:29:47 PM  
Because they're not smart enough to figure out why they're also losing customers?
 
2012-09-14 02:38:11 PM  
Whatever we do for healthcare, it is essential that we do not get rid of the tax break for employer provided healthcare and reform tort law. That would be a disaster.
 
kab
2012-09-14 02:52:59 PM  

BullBearMS: BullBearMS: 20 bucks a week.

Fixed that for everyone


When you're not making a lot to begin with, you'd be surprised how many folks elect to go without it..

*shrug*
 
2012-09-14 02:55:52 PM  
You know, I'm a business owner, and have been seriously thinking about hiring my first employee.

But I haven't, and am not sure I will because of one reason: I'm afraid my employee(s) will sue me.

Sue me for what? I'm not sure. It could be one of many things:

1. Some sort of discrimination that I've never hear of.
2. My supplies are not environmentally friendly enough
3. Maybe I have to let them go and they will want to sue for revenge
4. Etc, etc, etc.

I'm sure there are a ton of other things I could be sued for, but I just don't know what they are.

Can I afford Health Insurance for my employee? Yes. Can I afford a retirement plan for my employee? Yes. Most importantly, can I afford their SALARY? Yes. But what I can't do is buy 20 different kinds of insurances to protect me from every employee driven law suit. Because you just know that if I buy every single type of coverage that I know of, my employee will probably end up suing me for something I've never even heard of.

Anyway, end of rant. For those of you that work for some one else (ie. a company), this is the sort of thing some of us think about before hiring an employee.
 
2012-09-14 03:05:19 PM  
Yeah, it's not like healthcare costs were spiraling out of control or anything before PPACA was signed into law.

Once again, this country farking sucks.
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report