Mar 21 - House Passes Sweeping Health Care Reform

most viewed right now
 113
Erykah badu shows that fur burger
40 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 75
Image(s) inside Chinx’s Killer attended his funeral!!!!!smh
131 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 73
Image(s) inside Might let her meet the parents
47 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 72
Phat ass white girl for real
58 comments
@thotsdimesetc

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 8 years ago '05        #161
Adamsville 131 heat pts131
space
avatar space
space
$12,435 | Props total: 589 589
 ItAlY2BkLyN said:
^^^
false

This does not mean more hospitals / doctors and jobs

This is not to create jobs. This is to give more money to the gov't, insurance companies, etc.

In fact, there is actually a fear that there will be less doctors.

With universal healthcare, the standards and quality of healthcare will go down.

Yea some people who are uninsured now will get coverage, but 1000's of medicaid / medicare patients will be dropped. Small business are going to close because they can't afford to provide health insurance to their employees, and the 1000's of people who have been laid off and have no income will be force to spend what they have on some bulls**t coverage just to avoid penalties.

Add kids and a family to the mix and it's more than twice the trouble.
LIES LIES LIES

This is not universal healthcare.
Medicaid is extended by almost 15 million customers
Medicare solvency is extended
Small businesses get big tax credits and access to healthcare pools to negotiate packages
Laid off workers dont have to worry about a penalty


If you dont know what you're talking about, why do you keep posting?
 8 years ago '04        #162
ItAlY2BkLyN 238 heat pts238
space
avatar space
space
$22,155 | Props total: 9511 9511
 Adamsville said:
LIES LIES LIES

This is not universal healthcare.
Medicaid is extended by almost 15 million customers
Medicare solvency is extended
Small businesses get big tax credits and access to healthcare pools to negotiate packages
Laid off workers dont have to worry about a penalty


If you dont know what you're talking about, why do you keep posting?
correct this is not universal healthcare YET. But it is the first step in that direction.

I would like to see where you found that medicaid will be extended by 15million customers. Everything I've seen says that there will be a lot of medicaid recipients dropped.

Solvency is extended, but not fixed. It is still on the road to bankrupcy.

Small business will get tax breaks, but will still be required to provide coverage or face fines. And since they won't be able to afford any private corporate plans, what's that leave, the good ol' gov't plan. So basiclly forcing business owners to buy into gov't plans.

Laid off workers will get fined if they don't have health coverage. Whether they get it privately or through the gov't. Just because their laid off does not give them exemption from the new law. So yes, they will face penalties for not having health insurance.

Not to mention, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT? Another TRILLION dollars on top of the debt that has been doubled since Bush left.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you feel like you are the authority on the subject? Your partisan bias makes you refuse to see any flaws in your saviors healthcare reform bill.


Last edited by ItAlY2BkLyN; 03-24-2010 at 01:19 PM..
 8 years ago '04        #163
JBeezy 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$13,933 | Props total: 414 414
 stlcardinals19 said:
That's not one of the suits because that would never fly in court. The government has done a lot of things that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution, so precedence is on their side there.

And the penalty will most likely be changed as a tax, which the Constitution says the Govt. is able to create

Also, check this out, I don't think it's quite the k!ll shot that some others think it is, but I find this funny. from the Militia Act of 1792, signed by Washington:





AKA, it was an individual mandate on all adult white males to own adequate weaponry to be called upon for the militia
Oh I'm in no way saying any of the lawsuits will win. Merely that there is merit for their filing.
 8 years ago '08        #164
stlcardinals19 32 heat pts32
space
avatar space
space
$19,060 | Props total: 4845 4845
 JBeezy said:
Oh I'm in no way saying any of the lawsuits will win. Merely that there is merit for their filing.
:hmm:

Interesting. Do you see the suits as a symbol for something?
 03-24-2010, 02:43 PM         #165
1angrypinoy 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 stlcardinals19 said:
What do you feel is unconstitutional about it? And what parts of this bill do you feel is unconstitutional?
The government basically forcing everyone that can afford it to buy health insurance and fining them if they don't. What's next, people have to buy a shiitty GM car to keep GM afloat....oh wait, tax payers are already doing that.

Here's an example of why the reform bill is wrong on one level. It's no secret that many Americans are fat a.sses and not because of genetics. Why should anyone have to bear the burden of paying for a fat a.ss' unhealthy lifestyle choices. You know these fat fukks can afford to stuff their faces silly with food. If they can do that, then they are the only ones responsible for their health insurance premiums. Fukk this bullshiitt about you and me taking the brunt for someone's stupidity of putting THEIR own health at risk. Fat a.ss American can riskhis/her health all he/she wants, but the goverment has no right to make you or me pay for some moron's gluttony.

Have fun paying for this fat a.ss' health care

[video - click to view]


Second, the healthcare reform bill does nothing to improve pay to healthcare workers and the opposite will happen i.e. gov't will decrease reimbursements and private insurance companies (if any are left in the next decade) will follow suit.How is the healthcare system supposed to get better when the new law has no provisions helping to increase the number of healthcare workers AND there will be, potentially, an additional ~32 million more people with healthcare insurance?

Long live Obama!
 8 years ago '08        #166
stlcardinals19 32 heat pts32
space
avatar space
space
$19,060 | Props total: 4845 4845
 1angrypinoy said:
The government basically forcing everyone that can afford it to buy health insurance and fining them if they don't.
IIRC the term fine will be, in a legal manner, a tax. Which is included in the Constitution. They're not forcing you to buy anything, but if you don't you'll pay a tax for it.....
 8 years ago '04        #167
JBeezy 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$13,933 | Props total: 414 414
 stlcardinals19 said:
:hmm:

Interesting. Do you see the suits as a symbol for something?
Not sure what you mean......

I see the lawsuits as a good sign that the states are standing up for themselves and aren't going to go quietly along with whatever Uncle Sam says. Whether they win or not, I'm glad to see some f!ght is left in them.

Hope that is sort of what you were looking for...

 stlcardinals19 said:
IIRC the term fine will be, in a legal manner, a tax. Which is included in the Constitution. They're not forcing you to buy anything, but if you don't you'll pay a tax for it.....
Yes they're given the power to tax, but taxation is different then a penalty for not buying something. They can call it a tax all they want....what I see is a penalty, and I'm fairly certain they have no authority to penalize someone for not buying a good or a service.
 8 years ago '08        #168
stlcardinals19 32 heat pts32
space
avatar space
space
$19,060 | Props total: 4845 4845
 JBeezy said:
Not sure what you mean......

I see the lawsuits as a good sign that the states are standing up for themselves and aren't going to go quietly along with whatever Uncle Sam says. Whether they win or not, I'm glad to see some f!ght is left in them.

Hope that is sort of what you were looking for...
Actually, that's what I was lookin for. It does seem somewhat admirable that a few states would want to stand up, but IMO it's only b/c those are "red" states w/GOP AGs, and they've all of sudden stood up for small govt. But I digress.



Yes they're given the power to tax, but taxation is different then a penalty for not buying something. They can call it a tax all they want....what I see is a penalty, and I'm fairly certain they have no authority to penalize someone for not buying a good or a service.
What about the Car Insurance mandate? Yes, I know that driving is a privlege, so what say you if I were to say that healthcare INSURANCE is a privlege?
 8 years ago '04        #169
UknowWhatItIs 
space
avatar space
space
$8,675 | Props total: 7 7
hahaha at the people saying "a step in the right direction"

sit way back with that s**t

Obama views the people that bring in $250,000 or more as the enemies.

Government overseeing health care = disaster
 8 years ago '05        #170
Adamsville 131 heat pts131
space
avatar space
space
$12,435 | Props total: 589 589
 ItAlY2BkLyN said:
correct this is not universal healthcare YET. But it is the first step in that direction.

I would like to see where you found that medicaid will be extended by 15million customers. Everything I've seen says that there will be a lot of medicaid recipients dropped.

Solvency is extended, but not fixed. It is still on the road to bankrupcy.

Small business will get tax breaks, but will still be required to provide coverage or face fines. And since they won't be able to afford any private corporate plans, what's that leave, the good ol' gov't plan. So basiclly forcing business owners to buy into gov't plans.

Laid off workers will get fined if they don't have health coverage. Whether they get it privately or through the gov't. Just because their laid off does not give them exemption from the new law. So yes, they will face penalties for not having health insurance.

Not to mention, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT? Another TRILLION dollars on top of the debt that has been doubled since Bush left.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you feel like you are the authority on the subject? Your partisan bias makes you refuse to see any flaws in your saviors healthcare reform bill.
My Savior? I didnt know Jesus helped write the bill... cool

The only businesses that are required to provide insurance plans are businesses with at least 50 employees... thats a pretty decently sized business... and as it is they will be getting tax credits and they will be able to join other businesses in pools to negotiate plans with insurance companies

If you're unemployed you aren't fined for not having insurance. Period.

Afford it? How can we not afford it? It CUTS the deficit 138 billion in the first 10 years... you can check out the non partisan Budget Office for that

I dont have a monopoly on trust, but I do have a keen eye for a f**kin liar... and you sir are in direct sight
 8 years ago '05        #171
Ari Gold 315 heat pts315
space
avatar space
space
$15,218 | Props total: 1262 1262
sooo how are we going to be able to get this health care....?
 03-24-2010, 05:37 PM         #172
1angrypinoy 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
Found an interpretation of the health care bill on another board by a former attorney that's now a doctor.

(1) If you currently have employer provided health insurance, be ready to lose it in 2014. There will not be an employer on the planet who will bare the cost of providing health insurance to their workers, if they can flush them all to the public system and only pay a small (8%) tax. . . except of course for the automobile industry, who is barred by this bill from sending their union workers to the public system.

(2) If you currently own a small business or cover yourself, be ready for your private insurance premiums to skyrocket. Millions of people who were formerly in your "money pool" as one poster earlier stated will be flushed into the public system, making your premiums rise. Add to that the fact that insurance companies will be mandated to provide coverage to every joe-schmo off the street with a pre-existing condition, the companies will be forced to raise premiums even further to try to cover the cost of all the payouts for these conditions. You may hold out for a year or two, but faced with financial ruin, you will eventually enroll in the public system.

(3) If you currently choose not to have health insurance because either its too expensive through your employer or you just don't think you need it, be ready to provide proof on your federal income tax forms that you went out and got some or you will be fined $2500.00.

(4) If you pay any sort of taxes in this country, be ready for them to go up substantially right away. It doesn't matter how much you make, EVERYONE's taxes have now been increased.
Fukk yeah, long live Obama!
 8 years ago '04        #173
ItAlY2BkLyN 238 heat pts238
space
avatar space
space
$22,155 | Props total: 9511 9511
 Adamsville said:
My Savior? I didnt know Jesus helped write the bill... cool

The only businesses that are required to provide insurance plans are businesses with at least 50 employees... thats a pretty decently sized business... and as it is they will be getting tax credits and they will be able to join other businesses in pools to negotiate plans with insurance companies

If you're unemployed you aren't fined for not having insurance. Period.

Afford it? How can we not afford it? It CUTS the deficit 138 billion in the first 10 years... you can check out the non partisan Budget Office for that

I dont have a monopoly on trust, but I do have a keen eye for a f**kin liar... and you sir are in direct sight
By savior I mean the view that you as well as other NObama supports have that this man is going to change our country around and make it a great place to live. That he actually has your best interests in mind and that he is doing good "for the people".

In regards to the business take a look at the post above.

Still waiting on proof that those who are laid off are exempt from mandatory health coverage.

Yes afford it, you say it's going to cut the defecit by 138 billion in 10 years. Yet the plan cost a trillion dollars. So basiclly this program paid for 13% of it's cost in a decade. How is that positive? It pays for a small portion of it's own cost, yet we still have the largest defecit ever in history that is still out there PLUS the remainder of the health care bill. So explain to me how this is going to help our financial problems?
 03-24-2010, 09:17 PM         #174
$h0wtym3 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
I dont have health insurance and I dont need it, now im gonna be forced to pay for it. f**k Obama and f**k every ignorant a.ss obama supporter here yea i said it

I swear i feel like im surrounded by idiots sometimes
 8 years ago '08        #175
stlcardinals19 32 heat pts32
space
avatar space
space
$19,060 | Props total: 4845 4845
 ItAlY2BkLyN said:
By savior I mean the view that you as well as other NObama supports have that this man is going to change our country around and make it a great place to live. That he actually has your best interests in mind and that he is doing good "for the people".

In regards to the business take a look at the post above.

Still waiting on proof that those who are laid off are exempt from mandatory health coverage.

Yes afford it, you say it's going to cut the defecit by 138 billion in 10 years. Yet the plan cost a trillion dollars. So basiclly this program paid for 13% of it's cost in a decade. How is that positive? It pays for a small portion of it's own cost, yet we still have the largest defecit ever in history that is still out there PLUS the remainder of the health care bill. So explain to me how this is going to help our financial problems?
The question should not even be framed as will it shrink or grow the deficit...

the question - if it be one solely focused on the impact on deficits of health care reform - should more appropriately take the form of "will health care reform have a more palatable effect on deficit growth than not reforming healthcare would?

In other words - can we determine even in the case of deficit growth - which is likely no matter what - whether this reform will contribute less to deficit expansion than our current un reformed system of healthcare?"

using hypothetical numbers:
If our current system of healthcare expenditures would contribute a 5% growth of deficits over the next 5 years, and the reformed system would contribute a 3% growth of the deficit over the same period... than even if healthcare reform means a 3% growth of the deficit - it is still preferable to the status quo vis a vis deficit reduction... by fully 2%.


You can't say that universally any reform package that can demonstrably grow the deficit is bad... unless you first demonstrate that the system that it sets out to reform was not itself demonstrably worse.

As for the unemployed workers, check this link out:



It's an extension to help provide laid off workers to be eligible for the 65% premium subsidy for up to 12 months for the Federal COBRA.
 8 years ago '08        #176
stlcardinals19 32 heat pts32
space
avatar space
space
$19,060 | Props total: 4845 4845
 $h0wtym3 said:
I dont have health insurance and I dont need it, now im gonna be forced to pay for it. f**k Obama and f**k every ignorant a.ss obama supporter here yea i said it

I swear i feel like im surrounded by idiots sometimes
You don't really have to buy health insurance, you could just take the $750 annual tax though.....
 03-24-2010, 09:28 PM         #177
$h0wtym3 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 stlcardinals19 said:
You don't really have to buy health insurance, you could just take the $750 annual tax though.....
aka I have no choice but to spend money or face the IRS. I love it
 8 years ago '04        #178
ItAlY2BkLyN 238 heat pts238
space
avatar space
space
$22,155 | Props total: 9511 9511
 stlcardinals19 said:
The question should not even be framed as will it shrink or grow the deficit...

the question - if it be one solely focused on the impact on deficits of health care reform - should more appropriately take the form of "will health care reform have a more palatable effect on deficit growth than not reforming healthcare would?

In other words - can we determine even in the case of deficit growth - which is likely no matter what - whether this reform will contribute less to deficit expansion than our current un reformed system of healthcare?"

using hypothetical numbers:
If our current system of healthcare expenditures would contribute a 5% growth of deficits over the next 5 years, and the reformed system would contribute a 3% growth of the deficit over the same period... than even if healthcare reform means a 3% growth of the deficit - it is still preferable to the status quo vis a vis deficit reduction... by fully 2%.


You can't say that universally any reform package that can demonstrably grow the deficit is bad... unless you first demonstrate that the system that it sets out to reform was not itself demonstrably worse.

As for the unemployed workers, check this link out:



It's an extension to help provide laid off workers to be eligible for the 65% premium subsidy for up to 12 months for the Federal COBRA.
First let me say thanks for actually making an intelligent post worthy of discussion.

I see what you're saying. If reforming healthcare will decrease the gross overall deficit then it will be a positive thing. The constant in that equation though, is keeping the current bill that just passed. But I'm against the bill all together. There are other ways to reform healthcare. This brings up my initial problem overall. It's known that fraud makes up nearly 30% of the overall healthcare cost annually. That is equal to billions of dollars every year. This in itself could reform healthcare. This bill is not reforming healthcare. It is making us pay for eachother's insurance costs. It keeps the same structures in place that benefit the insurance and pharmaceudical companies.

check this out:

As for the COBRA subsidy. It's a good move in the right direction, but it will only benefit people laid off as of March 1, 2010. I've been laid off three times since 2007. Twice in the same year. COBRA was way too expensive. I went without insurance for a year and a half. There has been a subsidy in place but I wasn't eligible since I was a single male with no kids. I'm sure some people got some relief from it, but it's not like they make it easy. Plus they haven't even voted on that bill yet. It's proposed to be a bill next week. But like many proposals, you can expect it to get changed.

This bill is designed to force people into one gov't run healthcare system. This is a bad idea. There have been very few gov't run industries that have succeeded and many are currently on their way to bankrupcy.


Last edited by ItAlY2BkLyN; 03-24-2010 at 10:15 PM..
 8 years ago '08        #179
stlcardinals19 32 heat pts32
space
avatar space
space
$19,060 | Props total: 4845 4845
 ItAlY2BkLyN said:
First let me say thanks for actually making an intelligent post worthy of discussion.

I see what you're saying. If reforming healthcare will decrease the gross overall deficit then it will be a positive thing. The constant in that equation though, is keeping the current bill that just passed. But I'm against the bill all together. There are other ways to reform healthcare. This brings up my initial problem overall. It's known that fraud makes up nearly 30% of the overall healthcare cost annually. That is equal to billions of dollars every year. This in itself could reform healthcare. This bill is not reforming healthcare. It is making us pay for eachother's insurance costs. It keeps the same structures in place that benefit the insurance and pharmaceudical companies.

check this out:
Well, let me ask; where is the fraud? I'm not denying that there's fraud, but you can't target it unless you know exactly where and how the fraud is occurring.

Second, how do you excise the fraud without harming services to legitimate users?

Third, how do you make it politically viable? You know anything the Democrats propose is going to be screamed at/filibustered by Republicans, and I'm not convinced the Republicans are willing to offer anything constructive.



As for the COBRA subsidy. It's a good move in the right direction, but it will only benefit people laid off as of March 1, 2010. I've been laid off three times since 2007. Twice in the same year. COBRA was way too expensive. I went without insurance for a year and a half. There has been a subsidy in place but I wasn't eligible since I was a single male with no kids. I'm sure some people got some relief from it, but it's not like they make it easy. Plus they haven't even voted on that bill yet. It's proposed to be a bill next week. But like many proposals, you can expect it to get changed.

This bill is designed to force people into one gov't run healthcare system. This is a bad idea. There have been very few gov't run industries that have succeeded and many are currently on their way to bankrupcy.
There are also partial subsidies up to 300% of the poverty level, and Medicaid also covers those at the bottom.

There should be no excuse to not be able to afford insurance under this system, laid off or not. And I'm sure the bill will be passed to help w/the COBRA plan...
 03-25-2010, 07:41 PM         #180
1angrypinoy 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 stlcardinals19 said:
Well, let me ask; where is the fraud?
Right under your nose.



March 21, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
By Douglas Holtz-Eakin

Arlington, Va.

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are a.ssumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors
and other providers.


Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.
How exactly is it helping the future of the U.S. when there will be fewer education $s to go around?

Long live Obama!
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 53
50 cent did something to Comedienne Aarona Lopez. She has her friends worried!!!
99 comments
19 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 45
Video inside Get abused in an employee meeting brehs lol
42 comments
19 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 38
Video inside F*ck That: Atlanta Businessman Breaks Down How Crazy Expensive Is It to..
64 comments
19 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 26
Jeezy dissed Ralo on "Respect" , i told Ralo and its about to go down.
266 comments
21 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 25
Image(s) inside Dec 15 - Amazon may have just dropped a clue about the home of its new..
72 comments
19 hours ago
@news
most viewed right now
 21
Article inside Dustin Hoffman Accused of Sexual Misconduct by 5 More Women, Includin..
30 comments
19 hours ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 20
Article inside NBA2K18 Is Removing User Made Content From The Game
36 comments
19 hours ago
@games
most viewed right now
 19
Video inside Chick Rants About Only Liking Hood Guys! "I Love When I see A N*gga Glo..
175 comments
21 hours ago
@wild'ish
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy