America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by FuzzNJ. 29 replies replies.
ObamaCare Bill Specifics
Northsidepk Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-22-2010
Posts: 2,263
THE CARE BILL HB3200



THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL

Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX - HB3200 highlighted pages most
egregious

Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59



JUDGE KITHIL wrote:



** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S.
residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic
fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for
all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as
the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be
treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with
that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of
specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the
patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital
expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning
consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an
"end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can
write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members
of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social
Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their
retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they
would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their
future."

Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls, Texas

All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support
your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your
email contacts.
dsmokers Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2010
Posts: 569
all that does is give me some guy's opinion of what they will do. This is not a transcript or draft copy you're showing us, but rather just a bunch of "it's gonna do this and that."

hearsay is not a reason for me to go out and get ammo.

What does the actual BILL say? May I read it and make UP MY OWN MIND?????


thanks.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
"I have a message for the President. Mr. President, I have a message for you. Your health care bill stinks, just as we said it did. As a matter of fact, your health care bill is a fraud.

Your health care bill does not cover pre-existing needs for children as you said it did.

Your health care bill does, in fact, slash life-saving diagnostic tests for senior citizens, as we said it did, including MRIs, CAT scans, diagnostic labs, home health, medical devices, nursing homes, in-patient rehab facilities, in-patient psych hospitals, etc. Did you know that, Mr. President?

Your health care bill does change coverage for retirees, who now receive prescription drug coverage from businesses -- and forces them onto Medicare Part D.

You lied again, Mr. President. That's a change in coverage.

At the same time, your health care bill is not $940 billion over ten years, is it, Mr. President?

You lied, didn't you?

You fixed the books like Al Capone's accountant. When you add $320 billion to cover payments to doctors under Medicare. And when you double-counted $550 billion in Medicare "cuts". You increased spending by over $2 trillion when we add in the rest. Don't you, Mr. President?

You lied, didn't you?

And if you were in the private sector, you'd be indicted and facing sure imprisonment, wouldn't you, Mr. President?

And, in fact, your health care bill does drive up costs for small businesses. If they offers a private plan to employees that exceeds some government-imposed limit, over time it's taxed at 40%. Why?

And if these business don't offer health care to their employees, they're fined $2,000 per employee. Isn't that an expense?

If they offer a health plan that's not approved by the government, they're fined as well. Isn't that an expense?

Doesn't that change coverage?

And if these businesses don't offer coverage to part-time workers, they're find $2,000 a pop, again.

And your health care bill punishes young people and middle-class citizens as well even though you said it wouldn't.

You lied.

As the great Bill McGurn reports in the Wall Street Journal today:

Almost by definition, those hit by the mandate will be either young people starting out, or those working for smaller businesses that do not provide employees with health coverage. Back in November, a report by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that nearly half (46%) of the mandate penalties will be paid by Americans under 300% of the poverty line.

That's lower-middle class citizens, Mr. President. You lied.

In today's dollars, that works out to $32,500 for an individual. For a family of four, it's $66,150. Generally speaking, these are not the folks who have to worry about paying taxes on, say, a villa in the Dominican Republic or income from the International Monetary Fund.

So we are left with one of two possibilities. The first is that the penalty for not having "minimal essential coverage" is fully enforced, in which case Americans of relatively modest means will get a lesson in how the government deals with people who don't pay up.

Or the penalty for violating the individual mandate will become like the fines for not filling out your Census form. In other words, unenforced. In that case, the costs of this legislation will be even higher and more hidden than we have been led to believe.


You lied, Mr. President.

And you lied about the cost of premiums, too, Mr. President. You said that premiums would on average go down two thousand, five hundred dollars a year. The Associated Depress is reporting that:

Americans under the age of 35 can expect their individual health insurance premiums to rise by about 17 percent.

That's not a $2,500 cut, is it, Mr. President? You lied.

You also lied about the costs to the states, Mr. President.

The Council of State Governments, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, estimates that your expansio of Medicaid alone:

...will cost states $25 billion over the next 10 years, not including other significant administrative costs to initially implement the new law.

And you lied when you said your health care plan would increase efficiency, didn't you, Mr. President?

In fact, it will cause doctor shortages and long waiting periods. The Associated Depress reports the obvious:

Primary care physicians already are in short supply in parts of the country, and the landmark health overhaul that will bring them millions more newly insured patients in the next few years promises extra strain.

And what of those medical records -- our medical records, which will become part of the federal medical database, Mr. President? How do you plan to secure those? With the IRS?

Who will have access and how will we prevent misuse of our records, Mr. President?

Oh, you were all proud and celebratory, excited about this historic moment. The more we learn about this bill, the more disastrous it becomes. You got a very slight pop in the polls -- did you notice, Mr. President? And now you're down again. The generic party polls for Congress? Pelosi Democrats -- you got a very slight tick up -- and now you're down again. The people are wise to you.

As a matter of fact, you know your bill is deeply flawed, don't you, Mr. President? You were on the Today Show this morning, which is where you go when you want to put out your talking points, because you're never really challenged there. And now you're talking about this being just a first step. This is just a first step, ladies and gentlemen! Gee, I can't wait for the next one, can you? All these little steps, right over the cliff.

I think it is a critical first step in making a healthcare system that works for all Americans. It is not going to be the only thing. We are still going to have adjustments that have to be made to further reduce costs.

What does he mean, "further reduce costs"? Have costs been reduced anywhere?

Now, let me ask you a question: does it occur to anybody at the Today Show or on any of these other programs... has it occurred to a real, live journalist with a degree in Journalism... to confront this President as a serious person and ask him, "Mr. President, all these issues, all these points, you've been campaigning on -- as recently as last week. As recently as this weekend... and yet they were false! And you do this, you massively expand entitlements in this country despite the fact that we now have a report that the Social Security system is broke! Where is your proposal, Mr. President, for fixing the Social Security system? What are you going to do about it?"

Oh, it's one thing to create new programs, to create new promises. But, as President of the United States, you're still responsible for these programs. Nancy Pelosi was as proud as could be! Ol' Stretch was down there on the House floor saying that you all had invented Social Security, you all had invented Medicare and Medicaid. Okay, I'll give you that. But you've also destroyed them! You invented them -- and you destroyed them.

So the question, Mr. President, is: on your watch, what are you going to do about Social Security?

The editors of Investors Business Daily -- a real newspaper -- write:

Social Security's chief actuary reports that the social safety net will run a deficit for 2010, nine years earlier than predicted.

Put down that big gavel, Madam Speaker, we're about to hit the iceberg. Wow. Social Security is now offically broke.

They're expanding Medicaid. There are states that are soon to be officially broke. And yet they're required to pay a huge amount of this Medicaid.

They're going to be slashing Medicare, while pushing more citizens onto it, because the bill punishes businesses that are generous with prescription drug programs for retirees.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when radical, left-wing ideologues sit around and talk with each other about coming up with a Utopian proposal. Because there's no Utopia. This is misery, and it's only just begun, because it hasn't really kicked in yet.

But people are planning. Small and large businesses, senior citizens, young people, they're going to have to plan, going to have to hustle, have to figure out how to protect themselves. While the president bounces all over the place from one issue to the next, one entitlement to the next, one tax and spending increase to the next, patting himself on the back over how wonderful he's made this country.

You know what bothers me most about this? We have a man in the Oval Office who has no respect for what's come before him. He has no respect for what's been tried and tested throughout American history or -- for that matter -- throughout world history. We know that these Stalinist-like programs are failures. We know that, rather than create food, they create starvation. Rather than clothe people, people freeze in the winter. Rather than provide medical treatment for people, people suffer.

Oh, Mark, you say, that's extreme rhetoric: 'these Stalinist-like programs'. Really? Soviet-style? Where does come from? It doesn't come from the Founding Fathers. It doesn't come from the great philosophers on whom they relied.

Where does it come from?

It comes, mostly, from the same mindset. Oh, they have different degrees and levels of suffering and implementation and aggressiveness. But it's a soft tyranny as I've said before and have written. This is the soft tyranny that others have warned about. This is the soft tyranny that we witness in other societies -- being imposed upon us.

Obama has done nothing to cut costs in health care. He's done nothing to increase efficiencies in health care. He's done nothing to create competition in health care. He'd done nothing to address those who suffer -- and those who will suffer. Except to make it worse.

Except to make it worse.

...So welcome to ObamaCare, welcome to the Obama recovery, as jobs continue to not be saved or created, welcome to the Obama housing boom, welcome to the Obama business boom, isn't it great?

Isn't Utopia hell?

This bloated, out-of-control, top-heavy federal government couldn't run a damn weather-stripping program or "cash-for-clunkers" without billions in misery, waste, fraud and abuse. Now picture what that means for your health care."
dsmokers Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2010
Posts: 569
yeah...more ramblings, and less facts.

did I read that? no. Will anyone on this thread? I doubt it.

Will people read this post of mine and then will this thread stay alive? yes.

your welcome.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
There's NOTHING stopping you from reading the bill...Now that it passed!

Of course you gave Pelosi the pass. The one where they had to pass the bill to actually see what was in the bill.

So much for the most transparent administration ever. Bills posted 72 hours before a vote...riiight!

Debates on C-Span...riiight!

Actual coorespondence from the White House on matter of importance like this that impact the citizenry...riight!

But, you WON'T read the bill. You'll smoke a joint and go for a hike and tell everyone else to get informed, enlightened and as in your face as you are.

The bill was already thrown out on the street and the Obama Administration still thinks they can ignore a judge's ruling.

GAME OVER.
Northsidepk Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-22-2010
Posts: 2,263
dsmokers wrote:
yeah...more ramblings, and less facts.

did I read that? no. Will anyone on this thread? I doubt it.

Will people read this post of mine and then will this thread stay alive? yes.

your welcome.


I read the whole thing, we who consider ourselves worldly actually like to read......as opposed to the small minded person that depends on the government for well being and takes the governments word for truth........ Me, I'll take care of my own well being......
DrMaddVibe Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JDAS-8DMNTD/$file/VinsonRuling1312011.pdf

Pages 77-78 cap all you really need to know.

If you need to read the ObamaCare bill...you will have been better than ANYONE whom voted for it because they didn't!!!

When you're done reading the 2600+ pages of that get back to me on Judge Vinson's ruling.
Northsidepk Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-22-2010
Posts: 2,263
DrMaddVibe wrote:
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JDAS-8DMNTD/$file/VinsonRuling1312011.pdf

Pages 77-78 cap all you really need to know.

If you need to read the ObamaCare bill...you will have been better than ANYONE whom voted for it because they didn't!!!

When you're done reading the 2600+ pages of that get back to me on Judge Vinson's ruling.


Pretty cool to actually read the document declaring the so called healthcare reform bill unconstitutional and the logic that came to that conclusion.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
In order to refute Vinson's ruling they have to file.

Then comes the Supreme Court.

Vinson's ruling already states the commerce clause. The Supreme Court cannot and will not legislate from the bench.

They've already ruled on the commerce clause. They're already bound by the decision.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
Vinson's verbiage on Pg 49 - 55 is MAGNIFICENT!
Northsidepk Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-22-2010
Posts: 2,263
I'm not all that familiar with the process your describing.


In layman's terms it sounds like your saying that:

Due to the bill being deemed unconstitutional in part due to the bill violating the commerce clause

and the Supreme court upholding the commerce clause in a prior decision

This would mean that the Supreme Court is legally bound to uphold the decision of the bill being unconstitutional or

void there prior decision on the matter of the commerce clause???
DrMaddVibe Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
In a nutshell you have it NPK.

Lock, Stock and Barrel!
richokeeffe Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 12-07-2004
Posts: 7,020
I went to read the legislation just now. At least the pieces specifically indicated above. The section numbers and whatnot do not line up. It seems the critics of the bill ain't reading it either. For example, there are no sections 152, 164 or 1145.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html

Northsidepk Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-22-2010
Posts: 2,263
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Vinson's verbiage on Pg 49 - 55 is MAGNIFICENT!


I peticularly liked the quotation on the second page by James Madison about the founding of a government should have as a second priority the incentive to control itself. (ours has obviously lost the ability to control itself)


Remember our constitution gives up the RIGHT to remove or change our government if necessary
DrMaddVibe Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
SPOT ON!

It's up to us to decide what government will run for us and by us!
Northsidepk Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-22-2010
Posts: 2,263
After taking peticular attention to pgs 49-55 on your recommendation

It appear that the congress is attempting to use the "commerce clause" to enact a bill that it does not have the authority to enact.

That the Supreme Court has already ruled on the limitations of the commerce clause and would uphold these limitations.

That with the limitations upheld, congress would not have the authority to enact the healthcare bill and would null and void the bill in its entirety.

Thats good news........



LOL @ the bridge too far comment on pg 59 and the butterfly wings giving China a tsunami........
rfenst Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,366
Northsidepk wrote:
I'm not all that familiar with the process your describing.


In layman's terms it sounds like your saying that:

Due to the bill being deemed unconstitutional in part due to the bill violating the commerce clause

and the Supreme court upholding the commerce clause in a prior decision

This would mean that the Supreme Court is legally bound to uphold the decision of the bill being unconstitutional or

void there prior decision on the matter of the commerce clause???



The Supreme Court is NEVER bound by its own prior rulings (precedent). Shame on you
wheelrite Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
The Supreme Court is NEVER bound by its own prior rulings (precedent). Shame on you



Face it lefty...

Obama Care is dead...

Herfing
rfenst Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,366
wheelrite wrote:
Face it lefty...

Obama Care is dead...

Herfing


So what.
wheelrite Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
So what.



just saying..
donutboy2000 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
Sing praises to Dear Leader !
DrMaddVibe Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
rfenst wrote:
The Supreme Court is NEVER bound by its own prior rulings (precedent). Shame on you


Please show me the case where they've legislated from the bench.

I would really like to see the case that you feel they ruled on and overturned their decisions by majority.

The cases are brought to them and they decide what will be heard in their docket vs the constant ram down of frivolous litigation that clogs our lower courts.

I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a couple of Holiday Inns and would like your input Robert.
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,366
Off the top of my head, I am pretty certain that Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessey v. Ferguson and "seperate but equal". IIRC, it was unanimous, but I am not entirely certain...
DrMaddVibe Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
Not really an overturn.

More like righting a wrong held belief.

The "seperate but equal" didn't hold credence and shouldn't have either.

Segregation was and is wrong. Often times legislation is needed and that would alter the high courts decision in the matter.

States do have rights.

DrMaddVibe Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
In the case you mentioned it was a clause added to the 14th Amendment and later cases heard that brought us to the point of the Brown decision.

While they like to link the 2 they shouldn't.

If anything it shows that as a nation we have progressed.

I can't find that kind of real human progression in other nations.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
Administration asks judge to tell the states that healthcare law isn't optional
By Jason Millman - 02/17/11 06:36 PM ET
The Obama administration is asking a federal judge who struck down the healthcare reform law to clarify that states must still implement the overhaul as the appeals process plays out.

Some states are saying the Jan. 31 ruling relieves them from implementing the sweeping reform law because the federal judge in Florida found it to be unconstitutional.

The Obama administration, in a Thursday evening filing in a Northern Florida federal court, is asking the court to clarify that the 26 states who successfully challenged the law are still required to comply with it.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the law's requirement for individuals to purchase insurance is unconstitutional, and therefore, the rest of the law is unconstitutional because the provision is too central to making the law function. The administration points out that the so-called individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014, while other parts of the law have already gone into effect.

"[A] contrary understanding would threaten serious harm to many Americans currently benefiting from provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are already in effect and would significantly interfere with defendants’ statutory duty to implement the Act as Congress directed," the Justice Department wrote in its court filing.

In addition to the Florida ruling, another federal judge in Virginia ruled the law's individual mandate unconstitutional. However, two other federal judges upheld the mandate, while more than a dozen courts have thrown out challenges on procedural grounds.

In the aftermath of the Florida ruling, a number of states have questioned whether they must implement the law. Florida returned several grants, and Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike said there is confusion regarding future implementation.

Several lawmakers, including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), have called on the administration to ask the Supreme Court to fast-track the appeals. However, the administration seems content to allow the normal appeals process to play out.

Even states who are challenging the reform law in court are moving forward with implementation. On Wednesday, Wisconsin accepted a $38 million grant to establish technology infrastructure to support new health insurance exchanges created by the reform law.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/144955-administration-wants-court-to-back-implementation-of-healthcare-law
DrMaddVibe Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
Supreme Court will hear health care case this term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, setting up an election-year showdown over the White House's main domestic policy achievement.

The justices on Monday revealed they would take the case. That means arguments could come in March, allowing plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

The health care case could be the high court's most significant and political undertaking since the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore nearly 11 years ago. That ruling effectively sealed George W. Bush's 2000 presidential election victory.

Republicans have called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional since before Obama signed it into law in March 2010. But federal appeals courts have been split on their assessment.




Let's hope that Kagen recuses herself.
ZRX1200 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
A major supporter of the president’s health care reform law will be relinquishing his post as head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid to his number two in command after Republicans successfully prevented his confirmation to the post.

Harvard professor Donald Berwick — who once explained that “excellent health care is, by definition, redistribution” — will step down Dec. 2 officials confirmed to the Associated Press on Wednesday.

The White House announced that they have nominated Berwick’s principal deputy administrator, Marilyn Tavenner, to take over the position.

Earlier this year, 42 Republican senators promised to block Berwick’s confirmation. Their success in preventing Berwick’s appointment represents another blow to the president’s health care law —Berwick was an important actor in introducing its reforms.

Obama nominated Berwick to the post but before Democrats scheduled a hearing, the president bypassed the Senate and appointed him to the post during recess last July, which allowed him to serve through the end of the year.

The soon-to-be former Medicare head was a favorite target for Republicans, who pointed to past quotes they say demonstrated his embrace of socialized medicine and rationing as a sure reason to oppose him.

“Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must — must —redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate,” Berwick said, for example, in 2008 during a speech in the United Kingdom.

Berwick has denied that he is an advocate for government rationing of health care.

Tavenner will serve as interim head until her confirmation next year.












Oh snap.
FuzzNJ Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
snap?

"Starting next January, I will make the prompt submission of my presidential nominees a top priority. And I will ask the Senate to act on each nominee I submit within 60 days. I would ask Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to follow this standard regardless of who may be elected next November. Public service is an honorable calling, and there are many now serving in Washington who view it just that way. But their voices are easily drowned out in the din of battle. Instead, the agenda is determined - the tone set - by the loud, the aggressive, the contentious.This should not be the spirit of Washington. This is no way to encourage good people to serve, and no way to build a legacy of accomplishment." GWBush



"It is the worst ever," said Paul Light, a presidential nominations expert at New York University.

He said dragging out confirmations is nothing new, and both Democrats and Republicans have done it. But he said the current delays are unprecedented, and word has spread that the nomination ordeal is not worth it.

"What I hear is that two, three, four people are refusing invitations to serve before they get to one who'll go through this process," Light added. "It has just become a very ugly process, very dispiriting."

Take, for example, a nominee the Senate finally confirmed Tuesday. Half of the Republicans and all of the Democrats voted to confirm Lael Brainard as the Treasury Department's undersecretary for international affairs — 13 months after she was nominated.

Republicans raised questions about tax deductions she had taken. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) urged colleagues not to confirm her.

"This is not just a matter of taxes — it is a matter of trust," Bunning said.

Unlike most of the current holds, Bunning's was public.

As Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) pointed out, most senators won't acknowledge having put holds on nominees.

"You want to know why this, the country, doesn't trust us," McCaskill asked. "It's because of this kind of nonsense, this kind of secret hold shenanigans."

McCaskill said 80 or so nominees remain stalled by secret holds, and she's trying to reveal the holds' authors by demanding votes on those nominees.

No. 2 Senate Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona objected to McCaskill's request for votes. He did so on behalf of colleagues whose names he did not reveal.

"I am not defending a lot of holds," Kyl said.

When asked if he thought holds had gotten excessive, Kyle answered, "They might well be; I don't know."

The irony, said nominations expert Light, is that Obama has had to go around the Senate to fill out his team.

"There are a lot of these jobs that are now filled by acting officials or non-Senate confirmed presidential appointees, and the Senate should be outraged by it," Light said. "Yet, they dither with these holds that result in very significant problems with governing."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126154844
Users browsing this topic
Guest