Nobamacare!
A Florida judge has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. From MSNBC's FirstRead blogs about Judge Roger Vinson's decision:
Judge Roger Vinson found the entire law unconstitutional, after declaring that its key element -- the health insurance mandate -- was a law Congress did not have the power to enact. Opponents of the law claimed that while the government can regulate the activities of people engaged in commerce, like the insurance industry, it cannot regulate someone's inactivity -- that is, someone's refusal to buy insurance. It's an argument the judge found persuasive."It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause," he said. If that were true, he said, "it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted." If Congress could reach so broadly, "we would have a Constitution in name only," he said.
Judge Vinson rejected the Obama administration's argument that no one truly opts out of the health care system, because everyone eventually needs medical attention. In that sense, the judge said, health care is no different than many human activities.
"There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that --- when aggregated with similar economic decisions --- affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not," he said.
Vinson is a federal judge, a Reagan appointee serving in Florida.
Ilya Shapiro blogs at Cato:
1. In performing his severability analysis -- determining which parts of the overall legislation survive -- the judge threw out all of Obamacare:In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably "evident," as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently. I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed. This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the "normal rule" that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute, but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.
Here's are some choice excerpts from the opinion that reason Foundation's Manny Klausner e-mailed me:
The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be utilized to "pass laws for the accomplishment of objects" that are not within Congress' enumerated powers. As the previous analysis of the defendants' Commerce Clause argument reveals, the individual mandate is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. To uphold that provision via application of the Necessary and Proper Clause would authorize Congress to reach and regulate far beyond the currently established "outer limits" of the Commerce Clause and effectively remove all limits on federal power.[U]nder [the Government's] logic, Congress could . . . raise too-low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market.
Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system.
Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile --- now partially government-owned --- because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business."
Peter Suderman over at reason explains further why the whole shebang had to go:
When Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate last year in response to Virginia's constitutional challenge to the health care overhaul, he left the rest of the law intact. In ruling on a separate multi-state challenge to the law today, Roger Vinson, a federal judge in Pensacola, Florida, went significantly further by striking down the entire law. Why the difference?Because the law contained no severability clause, which would have protected the bulk of the law should one part be ruled unconstitutional, Vinson had to decide whether in striking the mandate he should also strike some or all of the rest of the law. Supreme Court guidance on laws lacking severability clauses suggests that judges should generally seek to excise as little of the law as possible, but also to ensure that if there is a remainder, it still serves the law's overall intended objective.
Therein lies the problem for the law's legal backers. As Vinson notes in his ruling, both the administration, which is implementing the law and defending it in court, and Congress, which wrote and passed the law, have made clear that the individual mandate is an absolutely critical provision.
And it was, critical, too, to those of us who wanted this monstrosity overturned.
Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals
I like this example - who remembers Bush 41 proclaiming as a light-hearted joke "I don't like broccoli. I never liked it and now that I'm President I don't have to eat it anymore", or words to that effect, and getting blamed for tanking sales afterwards? Perhaps Congress should have brought in a law to fix it.
Ltw at January 31, 2011 11:50 PM
test
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2011 5:16 AM
Can I kiss the judge?
I want him on SCOTUS!
Jim P. at February 1, 2011 5:22 AM
Anyone see CNN's analysis of this ruling? According to them the judge's entire argument is without merit, and solely due to his appointment by a Republican. He's a corrupt and incompetent judge. Also all judges vote with their party, they don't judge anything on its merits, it's all politics. Of course, CNN is impartial.
kaleb at February 1, 2011 6:02 AM
Finally someone in our judicial system applied common sense and interpreted the constitution and the power of congress correctly. Judge Roger Vinson is absolutely correct that congress cannot force inactivity in commerce upon the people. His ruling should also be interpreted by the supreme court as constitutionally valid and should uphold his ruling.
It does not surprise me in the least that Ronald Regan appointed Judge Vinson to the bench. As I have stated in pervious posts on this subject; Obamacare is unconstitutional and will not hold up to a well prepared argument against the power that congress has in regard to the commerce law.
While our government tries desperately to erode our constitutional rights it’s nice to know that, at least for the moment, there is still a chance for an abusive use of power to be to be undone…..
Ed at February 1, 2011 6:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/01/nobamacare.html#comment-1834810">comment from EdMaybe if these jerks who supposedly represent us had read this thing before they passed it they would have noted this. I mean, don't these twits mostly have law degrees? (I know, expecting them to not only read but weigh in on the merits or lack thereof of a law is fantasyland.)
Amy Alkon
at February 1, 2011 6:46 AM
My complicated feelings on health care reform aside, this part of his argument is bogus:
"There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee..."
I can go the rest of my life without everything on that list, and so can anybody. But chances are pretty good that I WON'T be so lucky as to go my entire life without needing some pretty expensive health care at some point.
There is plenty to criticize about the reform law. And PLENTY to criticize about the way things are now. But the judge is comparing apples to pineapples here. Health care/insurance is a different thing entirely, and that's why it's so difficult to pin down and straighten out.
This argument is every bit as idiotic as the argument of reform supporters that health insurance is like car insurance.
sofar at February 1, 2011 7:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/01/nobamacare.html#comment-1834818">comment from sofarThis dumb law never solved two big problems -- untying health care from the workplace and allowing it to be bought across state lines. It did, however, include a provision to make you need to 1099 any business you spend more than $600 with in the course of your work.
Amy Alkon
at February 1, 2011 7:10 AM
they should never be able to put crap in these bills that have nothing to do with them either. and yea. can you imagine doing you job they way they do theirs?? we'd all be fired in a hot minute...
melody at February 1, 2011 8:07 AM
Call me a cynic but I believe that the Obamacare failing was all part of the lefts plan.
They knew they couldn't get the support for a full government takeover of healthcare (which is what they always wanted) so they made a very bad one and when it fails, they will say well the only way for it to be constitutional is to do a complete gov't takeover of healthcare. Fortunately the current house would not go for that.
Joe at February 1, 2011 8:12 AM
sofar wrote: I can go the rest of my life without everything on that list, and so can anybody. But chances are pretty good that I WON'T be so lucky as to go my entire life without needing some pretty expensive health care at some point.
You are most likely correct that you will need health care. However it is your responsibility to provide it for yourself and your family. It is not the business of the fed to force you or me or private business into a socialist reformation of healthcare and give themselves the authority to fine and/or jail us if we do not capitulate.
This ruling is based on the fact that it is unconstitutional for congress to abuse the power of the commerce clause. That is not idiotic, it is constitutional, if you’d like to rebuke you rights that’s fine, just don’t force me to follow suit.
If the fed gave a shit about us they would allow healthcare to be bought across state lines and allow you to buy what you decide is in your best interest. There is no reason (as an example) that a healthy 25yr old would need comprehensive healthcare when catastrophic coverage would suffice. In my state you have no choice, it’s all or nothing. If I could go outside my state (as I can for any other type of insurance) I could cut my premiums in half. Competition is the life blood of capitalism and if the state to state restrictions were rescinded far more people could get affordable healthcare. The fed however is not interested in fairness, they are interested in control, at the expense of the citizens of this country.
In short the federal government and our “Idiot and Thief” Obama want healthcare to implode so they can get what they really want. A socialist single payer program run entirely by the fed at the expense of tax payers.
Doesn’t anyone else find it at all disturbing that the house, senate, judicial branch, the president and his cabinet as well as federal unions have been exempt from all this as well as many other unions (ie: uaw, teachers unions, teamsters etc…) What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Ed at February 1, 2011 8:35 AM
sofar wrote: I can go the rest of my life without everything on that list, and so can anybody. But chances are pretty good that I WON'T be so lucky as to go my entire life without needing some pretty expensive health care at some point.
You are most likely correct that you will need health care. However it is your responsibility to provide it for yourself and your family. It is not the business of the fed to force you or me or private business into a socialist reformation of healthcare and give themselves the authority to fine and/or jail us if we do not capitulate.
This ruling is based on the fact that it is unconstitutional for congress to abuse the power of the commerce clause. That is not idiotic, it is constitutional, if you’d like to rebuke you rights that’s fine, just don’t force me to follow suit.
If the fed gave a shit about us they would allow healthcare to be bought across state lines and allow you to buy what you decide is in your best interest. There is no reason (as an example) that a healthy 25yr old would need comprehensive healthcare when catastrophic coverage would suffice. In my state you have no choice, it’s all or nothing. If I could go outside my state (as I can for any other type of insurance) I could cut my premiums in half. Competition is the life blood of capitalism and if the state to state restrictions were rescinded far more people could get affordable healthcare. The fed however is not interested in fairness, they are interested in control, at the expense of the citizens of this country.
In short the federal government and our “Idiot and Thief” Obama want healthcare to implode so they can get what they really want. A socialist single payer program run entirely by the fed at the expense of tax payers.
Doesn’t anyone else find it at all disturbing that the house, senate, judicial branch, the president and his cabinet as well as federal unions have been exempt from all this as well as many other unions (ie: uaw, teachers unions, teamsters etc…) This unconstitutional law is an absolute abomination…..
Ed at February 1, 2011 8:40 AM
Sorry for the double post.....
Ed at February 1, 2011 8:42 AM
All right, all of you nay sayers out there:
From a cancer survivor: I would be dead, dead, dead now if I did not have good insurance provided by a job I was fortunate enough to have had in 1993. I would not even have had the test that found the tumor and the disease would have gone on to stage infinity quickly, according to the evidence.
Why was I lucky enough to survive? because I had a decent job.
So, the 10% unemployed, their families, the discouraged workers, etc should not survive?
Great Xian ethics out there.
Christ would be trying to find a way to help even the un/under/discouraged employed people, not just keep what he has already.
LuciaMarie at February 1, 2011 10:04 AM
Lucia, you SHOULD have been able to buy your own insurance, just like car, not worry about having a job or not. And, if you are unemployed, paying that premium should be no more the rest of us's responsibility than paying your car insurance. Budget, people, budget.
Insurance should also only cover the unforseeables, like cancer, not vaccines and the sniffles.
momof4 at February 1, 2011 10:16 AM
I am not against health care reform, but do not support obamacare. The bill as written bends to every special interest on the left. C'mon, 2200 pages of crap that nobody read, but had to be signed "so we can see all the goodies in it". Health care reform without Tort reform is a joke. Throw this crappy bill out and start over and address all the issues at hand. Craft a bill that everybody has to comply to, no exceptions, including congress.
ronc at February 1, 2011 10:23 AM
(1) I am going to use medical care at some point.
(2) Therefore, the goverment gets to tell me what insurance products to buy during the 50-60 years of adult life I live.
How does (2) follow from (1), you ask? The breezy answer is "commerce clause!" Because you will, at some point, do (1), the US government gets to do (2).
Libertarians: If government has that sort of power under the commerce clause, what power does it *not* have?
There has been, to my mind, no genuine explanation by supporters of Obama to the libertarian question, except as one wag noted, the commerce clause does not provide power to regulate abortion.
Spartee at February 1, 2011 10:36 AM
Of course, the real question, really the only one, is not what Vinson's opinion found, but what Justice Kennedy thinks of this analysis vs. the analyses in the other cases about this issue that have been decided thus far: that the bill is constitutional as written or that the mandate is unconstitutional but severable (the law does not require an explicit severability provision, contrary to Suderman's analysis).
The activist conservative block would certainly prefer to declare the entire bill unconstitutional. The liberal block of will support the bill in full. Kennedy could vote with one or the other block, or carve out a middle path that keeps the bill but kills the mandate, and probably get enough support for that from the conservative block if they couldn't fully repeal. While his opinions are difficult to predict, I think the middle path seems most like him.
Christopher at February 1, 2011 10:39 AM
"This dumb law never solved two big problems -- untying health care from the workplace and allowing it to be bought across state lines."
No surpise there; the purpose of the law was otherwise. You are focused on the law ending two rather large market-skewing rules currently in place.
But people generally left of center simply want government to pay for health care. Movement in that direction has been difficult for decades.
So this was a feint, to make things move toward that left of center goal, with the law's complexity and unworkability actually a means of showing that the markets are too unfair to be trusted, so obviously still *more* regulation (i.e., command economy management) is needed in American health care provision.
So far, the thing is working, it seems. If it can survive another 3-4 years, its failure to achieve anything good will be cited as due to market failures, not that the law was awful to begin with.
Spartee at February 1, 2011 10:43 AM
LuciaMarie,
While I am happy that you survived (my son diagnosed in 1994 was not so lucky) I shouldn’t nor should the federal government be responsible for your health and well being, or anyone else's for that matter. My son was diagnosed (wilms tumor) because of a freak accident. He received the best healthcare that could be provided (Hershey Medical Center). They gave myself and his entire extended family far more time and hope than any government provided healthcare could have.
I have intimate knowledge of our healthcare system because of this. People below the poverty level have access to Medicaid and Medicare. Those who fall through the cracks can apply for relief from there states catastrophic loss fund. Both of which are funded by tax payers. There are also federal laws that make refusing treatment a criminal offense. No one, or hardly anyone, is denied treatment. Even Obamacare doesn’t account for everyone. Upwards of 7% will still be unaccounted for. Also remember this, your oncologist and a bevy of other healthcare professionals saved your life. Not your job or the healthcare they provided. As a survivor I know you know this.
We do not live in a utopia. We live in a country where you have certain unalienable rights; not a guarantee to be taken care of by everyone around you because you are unable or unwilling to do it for yourself. Isn’t a home and food just as important, or for that matter, more important than healthcare? Should tax payers be forced to provide homes and food to those who cannot do it for themselves (excluding the ones on welfare which we already do this for as well as healthcare)?
If you want better access to healthcare for all, remove the nonsensical restrictions on healthcare and make it a competitive market that allows anyone to purchase healthcare from any insurer not just the ones your state allows. Open markets drive prices down not government intervention. Just imagine how much your tv would cost if you where only allowed to buy from Sony. Why on earth would they sell at there lowest price if they don’t have to? Answer: they wouldn’t nor will health care without open, competitive markets…..
Ed at February 1, 2011 10:57 AM
Keep in mind, ObamaCare requires you to purchase health insurance, not health care. The two are different.
And ObamaCare mandates what kind of health insurance you are allowed to purchase (or mandates a fine if you opt out or purchase a "luxury" plan).
And it mandates what kind of health care you will receive from that insurance plan.
You're right, you will need health care at some point. It should be your choice whether you buy health insurance beforehand ... and what kind of plan you purchase.
does not require you to
Conan the Grammarian at February 1, 2011 12:44 PM
Budget, people, budget.
-momof4
You are most likely correct that you will need health care. However it is your responsibility to provide it for yourself and your family.
That simple huh? Again, lots to dislike about the law. But there's even more to hate about his mindset articulated by some commenters here.
Long story ahead:
My story isn't as serious as LuciaMarie's cancer story. But it shows how I have little patience for the "if you're not insured it's your fault mindset."
More than 4 years ago, my boyfriend was attacked and beaten on his way home from class. A cop saw him lying in the street, bruised and barely conscious and thought, because he was near a street with several bars, "Oh, he's drunk! I will arrest him for public intoxication."
Eventually, they figured out something was really wrong. And, because he was barely conscious when he was admitted to the hospital, and nobody knew the real cause, "arrested for public intoxication" made it into his medical records. It was soon determined that he was not drunk, but bleeding in the brain. The PI case was thrown out in court. But, there it is, on his medical record for all time.
Now, the BF is self-employed, and graduated so he doesn't have insurance through school anymore. He would like very much to do the financially responsible thing (how did Momof4 put it? Oh yeah! "BUDGET!") and buy some private health insurance -- because he doesn't want to go bankrupt, if, say someone else beats him up.
One problem. Aetna, Cigna, Blue Cross, United and Celtic have all turned him down. Because of the PI he got for not being drunk! You can amend your medical records -- but you cannot delete anything from them. So, even though there's a notation with the real story, the PI is still there. And every single insurance company, when he asks the reason for turning him down, cites a "history of alcohol abuse."
Thing is, he hasn't been to a doctor since that event. He's healthy. No lasting effects from the injury. Should be an insurance company's dream come true.
Oh yeah, best part: the state high-risk insurance pools require that you have a chronic condition that you are receiving treatment for.
In other words, he's too high-risk for private health insurance, to low-risk for the high-risk pools.
Until he gets some employees so he can do group insurance through his business, he's screwed. I suppose he should just abandon his business, which will eventually employ about 25 people in our city and get a job that provides benefits...
As much as there is to dislike about HCR, the thing is that the law could give him something he's been denied and wants in 2014 -- health coverage.
sofar at February 1, 2011 3:40 PM
Keep in mind, ObamaCare requires you to purchase health insurance, not health care. The two are different.
-Conan
Well aware of that.
But if some idiot plows into me on my way home from work, we could be talking 100k in hospital bills. I have insurance. But what if I couldn't get it (see my story above)? Few people could realistically pay 100k out of pocket.
Never have I ever said that the current law was a solution. But a system that could leave someone bankrupt through no fault of their own needs some fixin'.
I'm curious to see which kinds of plans the government "deems" acceptable. If there's a wide variety (catastrophic-only, HSA-compatible, comprehensive), then I'm cool with people paying into a system that they will in all likelihood use.
...my biggest beef with reform is that it's a gimme for insurance companies, which I really really do hate.
sofar at February 1, 2011 3:49 PM
sofar, if he starts a business, he can purchase a "group plan" and be covered under that. If you think Obamacare is going to solve issues like this, you are indeed naive
ronc at February 1, 2011 3:49 PM
You need employees to start a group plan. At least one. He can't do hiring for probably 8 months or so, until he passes some more inspections for his facility. :)
sofar at February 1, 2011 4:01 PM
...and when he DOES get a group plan, he'll be taking advantage of the small business tax credits offered by *dun dun dunnnn* Obamacare.
sofar at February 1, 2011 4:04 PM
Christ would be trying to find a way to help even the un/under/discouraged employed people, not just keep what he has already.
Posted by: LuciaMarie
Um, lets look at Christ amoment shall we? He was born to a women, excuse me, leagl minor(or child according to most christinas today), who had sex with someone much older than her, other than her future husband. (given the son if god was born to a teenage mom I am always amazed at how christians revile them)
But thats beside the point, Christ himself wandered around, didnt have a job, spent all his time with other unmarred men and whores, and often preached to crowds of men extolling them to leave their wives and children and go trolling whith him for more men, or as the bible put it 'go fishing for men'
So lets see, we have the homeless, jobless, pennyless, perpetual single guy trying to build himself a harem full of semen, excuse me, sea men; and you think he would be on board to FORCE everyone into paying for other peoples heath insurance? He might, if he got to be the proctologist.
Here is a serious question for you though LuciaMarie, if this law passes and we are all compeld thru force of law(which means jail time to those who refuse{which means free heath care for them while they are in jail}) then why do taxes have to be raised in order to pay for it?
If we already have to spend our net earnings to buy health insurnace then why do we have to pay extra taxes to fund health insurance?
lujlp at February 1, 2011 4:19 PM
Is it really "no fault of his own?" If he is eligible to purchase health insurance and chooses not to, does he not bear some responsibility when those bills come due?
No argument that the system needs some fixin'. But the fixes it needs are not the ones contained in this law.
And too many of the additional economic burdens contained in this law are ways of sneaking a VAT into the tax system (e.g., the 1099 reporting regulations).
Health insurance needs to be disencumbered from employers and made portable across state lines (where the carrier has coverage in other states).
Conan the Grammarian at February 1, 2011 4:21 PM
"If Congress could reach so broadly, "we would have a Constitution in name only,"
Since when does the left care about the Constitution? They're quite happily openly attacking the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment, they've already happily trampled the 4th amendment into the ground, and have long since turned the 9th and 10th amendments into toilet paper. There isn't much left of the bill of rights, and the left call this 'victory'.
Lobster at February 1, 2011 4:39 PM
I have never in my life heard of an arrest being put in someone's medical record. Having been arrested on suspicion of DWI in college (it was dropped) I've never had an issue. "Medical record" currently being a misnomer-I have dozens of medical records various places, which are not all accessible through some magic portal. Every Dr or clinic or hospital you've ever visited has a medical record on you.
That said, I see no reason the rest of us should cough up so your BF can not get denied. The logical thing to do would be him get a lawyer, not screw the entire rest of the US population.
momof4 at February 1, 2011 5:29 PM
In 11 years as a medical transcriptionist I've never seen an arrest put into a medical record let alone what for. There would be mention of whether or not he failed a toxicology test as part of his differential diagnosis. If he was bwaten and lying on the sidewalk he would be brought in with an initial diagnosis of "found down" and then go from there to rule out the various causes. I now work in Release of Information where I process the forms and prepare medical records to be sent to various places that the patient authorizes, and the patient can authorize all or parts of the record to be sent. No one can just get your records without a signed authorization.
Something I find interesting is that a lor of people say they were denied insurance for a preexisting condition or specific medical condition. I never have been despite having a blood clotting disorder that comes with a very high risk for arterial thrombosis and strokes. I'm sure I got charged more because of it, but I wasn't denied. The closest I know of to denial was someone with leukemia. But even then they only weren't coveredfor leukemia or leukemia-related conditions.
BunnyGirl at February 1, 2011 11:17 PM
How many thousands of pages was this bill, and they "forgot" to stick in a severability provision? Whatever else you may think of them, the actual humans who actually write law (not the politicians who "author" bills) are far from stupid. If this bill made it all the way through all the legislative stages, with all the controversial provisions it contained, and lacked a simple, boilerplate severability clause, then that was a deliberate omission.
Miss Conduct at February 2, 2011 8:16 AM
"But if some idiot plows into me on my way home from work, we could be talking 100k in hospital bills. I have insurance. But what if I couldn't get it (see my story above)? Few people could realistically pay 100k out of pocket."
Believe it our not, you have come up with one of the scenarios where you will be fine without any medical insurance at all. In fact this is the very situation that auto insurance exists for. Check your policy. Most of the cost is for accident injuries and not the damage to your car. If the other guy is uninsured you UIM (uninsured/under insured motorist coverage) will pick up the tab.
Isabel1130 at February 2, 2011 8:31 AM
According to Pelosi, they had to pass it to see what was in it.
Conan the Grammarian at February 2, 2011 11:58 AM
Lucia and sofar, the other posters on here are tired of seeing this, but you haven't:
Your health care is not the duty of others.
The sad thing here is, you've been convinced it's difficult to provide for yourself. Nope.
You've been taught that you can't be denied care under a government program. Wrong. Care that is not available is not denied - but you still do without. Sick? The clerk is not sick. Fill out this form and wait. You will be told what you can have when others pay the bill. Period.
Radwaste at February 3, 2011 7:44 PM
Leave a comment