Trump Fixes Fatal Flaw With Policy

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 80
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
The reason that private insurance is so expensive is because government programs underpay doctors. Will that problem be solved? If so, how much will it cost?
This doesn't even make sense. If the issue were that their costs were high so their rates had to be high, then their profit margins wouldn't be so massive. The fact that they are raking in 10's of billions of dollars in profit shows that their costs are not high because they need to be. The costs are high because they can get away with it. If you eliminated the middle man (the insurance company) you are saving massive amounts of money. 

How does someone else having healthcare benefit me?
Both directly and indirectly. Directly because it guarantees that you, your family and your friends will all have healthcare. 

Indirectly in the sense that it helps society, the same way schools do. Large amounts of productivity are lost because people are too sick or injured to work. Access to proper medical care will significantly reduce this. It will prevent 100's of thousands of bankruptcies per year. This will both protect people and therefore benefit society, but will also save a great deal of money because there isn't large amounts of money being written off when people default. The list keeps going but I don't want to make this super long. 

how is it fair that I have to pay exponentially more money because other people make terrible life choices? Will shifting their costs to me deter their bad behavior?
There are 2 main problems here. 1) you will not pay exponentially more. The average family will pay the same or less. So your premise is flawed. 
2) The costs are not being shifted to you. They are being shifted to society at large. You are benefiting from it directly in the same way they are. You will be paying less to get better coverage. You are essentially complaining about getting better coverage because other people will get it too. 

Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
I'm not implying that you personally are any of those things they are all examples. Getting a little money for votes is what's going on, the problem is that you can't trust Trump. Even though we all like getting money the real problem is his character and the fact that he's screwed practically everyone that he's ever done business with including the American people.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@disgusted
What gives you the right to take what I earned and give it to someone that didn't earn it? That was my question that you ignored. You obviously can't justify it, which is why you don't answer.

Right: You have to do something for someone else to survive.(Altruism)
Left: I want everything I could ever want given to me because I breathe. You all have to give it to me or go to jail. You can't own more than me or it is bad! (envious thieves)
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
What gives you the right to take what I earned and give it to someone that didn't earn it? That was my question that you ignored. You obviously can't justify it, which is why you don't answer.
I never even suggested such, that's your fantasy, deal with your own imagination. What's in it for me. The left don't need to have their money taken because being altruists they willingly give it. The resources of a country belong to everybody not just greedy wingnuts.

Right: You have to do something for someone else to survive.(Altruism)
The target is in the other direction, turn around and try to aim.

Left: I want everything I could ever want given to me because I breathe. You all have to give it to me or go to jail. You can't own more than me or it is bad! (envious thieves)
The target has never been within your paradigm, re-aiming is pointless for the blind.

BTW the rulers take what you earn every moment of your existence, you just aren't smart enough to know.

bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@disgusted
Republicans give more to charities, so no, the liberal wingnuts are not the altruistic ones. They clearly do not give willingly.
Republicans also tip better. They help those poor restaurant workers out.

Well shucks, there goes your narrative. You bleeding-heart liberals sure want to give money to people you think need it, you just don't want it to be your money.

Tell me, what does this blabbering about targets mean. Please, actually give an articulate, and well-thought-out reason how my perspective is wrong. If you are capable that is....
<br>

SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Paul
I'm not implying that you personally are any of those things they are all examples.
Ok. You were using you in your comment, which made me think you were including me.
Getting a little money for votes is what's going on
Every politician does this. It is part of their job to set good economic policy, and a major part of all campaigns is discussing (more like fighting for the best soundbites, but whatever) whose ideas will work best in the economy.
 the problem is that you can't trust Trump. Even though we all like getting money the real problem is his character and the fact that he's screwed practically everyone that he's ever done business
I agree.
including the American people
Sometimes his policies have been bad for America, and sometimes they've been good.
However, none of this takes away from the fact that you are willing to call people racists, hateful, and dumb for the sole reason that they voted for a candidate you don't like.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
They are most certainly not making absurd profits. Health insurance companies get a 3.3% profit margin, which is pitiful. Banking and real estate companies make over 20% profit margins. Tell me, how is that modest 3.3% unreasonable?

We do not get rid of the middleman by getting rid of private insurance. We replace the insurance companies with government bureaucracy.

I can work hard and earn healthcare. And if I want a private insurance company that I surmise can do better than the government, I would take it. I keep hearing that this will raise worker productivity, but by how much? And why couldn't raising competition and lowering regulation help drive down costs instead to prevent said bankruptcies?

I don't believe that it will be better coverage unless it costs tons more, unless you price fix. Then, that is how you get absurd wait times, shortages of products, and stifled innovation.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
They are most certainly not making absurd profits. Health insurance companies get a 3.3% profit margin, which is pitiful. Banking and real estate companies make over 20% profit margins. Tell me, how is that modest 3.3% unreasonable?
Banking and real estate are also full of terrible business practices that desperately need to be regulated. But that is a separate issue. 

I came across some interesting reading while researching your point. Below is an article describing how insurance companies are actively complicit in medical prices being high. They don't actually actually care that hospitals over bill. The primary purpose they are supposed to provide (being an advocate for keeping costs down) they aren't even doing. I honestly can't see that the insurance industry serves any purpose at all other than to milk money out of people.

We do not get rid of the middleman by getting rid of private insurance. We replace the insurance companies with government bureaucracy.
But you are removing a middle man. You are removing a for profit company that is trying to make money off of the system and replacing it with a government agency that is not trying to milk more money out of sick people. An insurance company doesn't have any interest in helping you or making sure you get the care you need. Their goal is to make money. So if they can prevent you claiming insurance, they will. And if they can't, they will just raise your rates the next year so they get all that (and more) back. A government agency isn't going to deny you service and they aren't going to raise your rates on you when you get sick. They will also actually advocate to lower prices where insurance companies won't.

I keep hearing that this will raise worker productivity, but by how much?
It's hard to be certain. Here is a link to an article looking at the effects universal healthcare had in Jamaica. It lowered sick day usage by 28%-34%. That is approximately 2.15 additional hours of labor per week. That is alot of worker productivity. One of the main reasons is that people with no insurance (or have a large deductible) don't get frequent health screenings and are likely not to seek medical attention for something if it isn't urgent. this lets minor medical issues that could be fixed turn into big medical issues that cost way more time and money to fix. You save alot of time and money if everyone can afford to get regular medical treatment. 

And why couldn't raising competition and lowering regulation help drive down costs instead to prevent said bankruptcies?
How would you raise competition? They don't want to compete. They know that if everyone doubles their prices over what it actually costs, they will all make more than if they compete for prices. How would you force them to do that?

Lowering regulation is literally the worst idea. You are essentially saying that if you just cut rules the greedy, for profit companies have to follow then somehow that will result in them providing lower prices. There is absolutely no reason to think that cutting regulation would cause them to charge people less. They will charge as much as they can possibly get away with. Which the current system incentivizes them to do. 

I don't believe that it will be better coverage unless it costs tons more, unless you price fix.
I'm guessing you mean price fix in the sense that the government decides what the price is. When the better way to look at it is fixing the price (as in repairing something that is broken). Hospitals regularly charge way, way more for services than it costs. Insurance companies have no incentive to fight them because they can always just squeeze that money out of people anyway. It is more profitable for them to be friendly with the hospitals than to advocate for cheaper care. If America had a single payer system, then the insurer (the government) would actually have a reason to push back when hospitals charge double or triple the amount they should.

They also would save huge amounts on administration costs. Some estimates put the current cost of administrative costs at over 1 trillion per year. The convoluted mess that is the current system is a huge part of that. If all claims were going to 1 place and that process was always the same, this could be streamlines and reduced. You could save hundreds of billions of dollars by simplifying this with a single payer system.


Then, that is how you get absurd wait times,  
I agree it would increase wait times. But it is easy to keep wait times low when a large percentage of the population can't afford care. Essentially america keeps wait times low by pushing poor people out of the line. If you think you should get care faster by letting poor people die, then I guess you can go on believing that. 

shortages of products,
If companies can earn a profit on a product they will produce it. They don't need a 50%-20,000% markup on it in order to produce it. The idea that controlling costs would lead to shortages is just ridiculous.

and stifled innovation.
Here is an article discussing that. The large majority of new drugs are funded by the government. Then a private company snatches them up, does a little bit of tweaking to them and sells them at a massive markup. The for profit companies take all the profit while government labs do much of the work. So no, you are not going to stifle innovation because much of that is government funded anyway. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
What gives your self-righteous, entitled self the right to steal my property that I earned and give it to someone who didn't earn it?
Are you kidding me?

You can't "earn" anything without public roads and police and fire protection and courts of law.

You can't "earn" anything without functioning infrastructure.

In order for that infrastructure to remain viable - YOU MUST CONTRIBUTE TO IT.

You take advantage of public services and you must contribute to public services.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I went on to say that a few of the services that you outlined I was okay with paying for. I said I was perfectly fine with roads, police, and the fire department. I was hesitant on some education and didn't see how healthcare for others helped me.

Now, paying for other people's food stamps and subsidizing single mothers who have 10 children is something that I would not support. That doesn't help me. If you want to contribute to those people, fine. Just don't force me to at gunpoint. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@disgusted
Right = POOR PEOPLE ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD AND LAZY
Left = POOR PEOPLE ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY ARE UNFORTUNATE
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
I went on to say that a few of the services that you outlined I was okay with paying for. I said I was perfectly fine with roads, police, and the fire department.
Ok, but why?  If you never call the cops, why should you pay?  If you never call the fire department, why should you pay?  If you don't own a car, why should you pay for roads?

I was hesitant on some education and didn't see how healthcare for others helped me.
In the current system, without public-healthcare, people who can't afford to pay end up in emergency rooms, with typical bills that are 10 to 100 times what a regular doctor's visit would cost.  These people, who can't afford to pay, FORCE THE HOSPITALS TO RAISE THEIR PRICES FOR EVERYONE IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LOSS.

You're already paying for the uninsured poor people's healthcare.  And you're paying 10 to 100 times what you should be.

Now, paying for other people's food stamps and subsidizing single mothers who have 10 children is something that I would not support.
I see.  So you'd rather pay them $31,000.00 per inmate per year (plus trial expenses) to hold them in prisons?  Or pay them $35,578.00 per person per year in public services for them to live as homeless people?

Incarcerating immigrants costs $200.00 a day.  That's $73,000.00 per year per immigrant.  There's your atrocity.  Immigrants are costing us MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!  Of course they are, but it would save a lot of money for everyone if we just let them get jobs like they wanted in the first place.

That doesn't help me.
Helping parents survive so they don't have to turn to crime, and helping them keep their kids in school so they can eventually contribute to the economy DOESN'T HELP YOU??

If you want to contribute to those people, fine. Just don't force me to at gunpoint. 
Look, the government does a lot of stuff that I don't agree with.  UNFORTUNATELY YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH SPECIFIC PROJECTS YOUR TAX MONEY GO TO.  That's just not how this works.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
There are some good arguments for why you shouldn't pay for some of those things. I, for one, am okay with having them. If I pledged never to call the cops or use any service that required a road or call the fire fighters, hypothetically speaking, why should I have to pay for them? The cops deter crime, which helps me. The firefighters are there to save MY house. Roads are there for ME to get to work, the grocery, or to have things delivered to me. They took my money, but they are also directly impacting me in a beneficial way.

Hospitals actually get tax credits for when they take care of the uninsured in the emergency room, so not quite hitting the mark there.  10 to 100x what I should be paying? Are you saying if I didn't have insurance? Yes, the prices are inflated if you don't have insurance. You know why new drugs and procedures cost so damn much? Guess how long it takes to get a new drug...About 10 years. https://www.hiv.va.gov/patient/clinical-trials/drug-approval-process.asp They need to recover their costs, and we lead the world in innovation for not price fixing.

I do find it problematic that we have a bunch of people getting incarcerated. They aren't being productive citizens while in prison, and I have to pay for them. Now, you did something silly by saying that I want to lock up immigrants. I don't. Now, if you're talking about illegal aliens (big distinction), then I don't particularly want to incarcerate them, either. Ship them back to their home country immediately.

Imposing huge taxes and expensive regulations making it harder to find jobs and buy products for a decent price is one reason parents would be struggling. The homeless crisis in California is completely at the foot of your Democrat politicians.

Ok, so we agree the government does a lot of bad things that we don't want to pay for. Some, like the wars in the Middle East, we will both agree need to stop. Now, as far as I know, you don't support federalism. If states and local areas were given their rightful control over issues, you as a citizen could have more control over what you pay for. If you don't support it, you could leave the state. When you give so much power to the federal government, it is a lot harder to escape. Why can't medicare/medicaid be a state thing?
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
That is a lot of info. I'll get to it when I can.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
Hospitals actually get tax credits for when they take care of the uninsured in the emergency room, so not quite hitting the mark there. 
Who pays taxes?  Who has to make-up for the money dolled out in tax-credits?  Tax-payers, that's who.

10 to 100x what I should be paying? Are you saying if I didn't have insurance?
Even if you have insurance.  Emergency room care costs more than non-emergency room care.  Even if your insurance company covers it.

Yes, the prices are inflated if you don't have insurance.
If lots of people (with insurance) are using emergency room care when they could be using non-emergency room care, you're going to inflate insurance premiums to make up the difference.  That's how insurance works.  The old and chronically ill pay less-than-they-cost, and the young and healthy pay more-than-they-cost.

And the insured currently subsidize the uninsured with their TAXES.

You know why new drugs and procedures cost so damn much?
Why do OLD drugs cost so damn much?

When inventor Frederick Banting discovered insulin in 1923, he refused to put his name on the patent. He felt it was unethical for a doctor to profit from a discovery that would save lives. Banting’s co-inventors, James Collip and Charles Best, sold the insulin patent to the University of Toronto for a mere $1. They wanted everyone who needed their medication to be able to afford it.

One real solution to the problem, however, would be to bring a generic version of insulin to the market. There are currently no true generic options available (though there are several rebranded and biosimilar insulins). This is in part because companies have made those incremental improvements to insulin products, which has allowed them to keep their formulations under patent, and because older insulin formulations have fallen out of fashion.

Canadians pay $20.00 for a carton of insulin that costs $300.00 in the USA.  That's a mere 6.6%.  A 94.4% SAVINGS!! [LINK]

INSULIN.  A drug that's been around since the 1920s.

Guess how long it takes to get a new drug...About 10 years. They need to recover their costs, and we lead the world in innovation for not price fixing.
Pharmaceutical companies already spend more on marketing then they do on research.  And most of their research is already subsidized by the government, and they're making record breaking profits anyway, so complaining about "the cost" is nonsensical.

Also, most of their "expensive research" is in service of defending their patent protection (they expire every 20 years unless they can reformulate it somehow and re-file for a new patent) and NOT in service of "creating more effective treatments".
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Who pays taxes?  Who has to make-up for the money dolled out in tax-credits?  Tax-payers, that's who.
Nobody really pays for those tax credits. Have you seen our debt? Cut spending.

  The old and chronically ill pay less-than-they-cost, and the young and healthy pay more-than-they-cost.

Yes, the old do pay less than they should and the young/healthy pay more than they should according to their costs. Now, how would universal healthcare plans by the government solve that? Then whoever makes more money pays more, not based on costs. Private insurance companies should be able to cost-discriminate more.

This is in part because companies have made those incremental improvements to insulin products, which has allowed them to keep their formulations under patent, and because older insulin formulations have fallen out of fashion.
I agree, we need some sort of patent reform that allows patents for innovative and new products, rather than slightly altered old drugs. 

Pharmaceutical companies already spend more on marketing then they do on research.  And most of their research is already subsidized by the government, and they're making record breaking profits anyway, so complaining about "the cost" is nonsensical.
If we are giving taxpayer money to private companies, that is a problem. There should be stricter rules on government-funded research with regard to patents, prices, etc. Without government aid, they should be able to charge however much they want, though.

Also, most of their "expensive research" is in service of defending their patent protection (they expire every 20 years unless they can reformulate it somehow and re-file for a new patent) and NOT in service of "creating more effective treatments".
Again, I do have a problem with companies exploiting how patents work. You would have to be super careful about how the patent reform is done, though. I want generic versions of products to enter the market at lower prices, as they are supposed to after 20 years.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
That link also showed that the ACA gave a perverse incentive for insurance companies to increase spending because they could make more in profits. The ACA required 80% of premiums to go towards medical costs, so they spend more, can bill more then, and then make larger profits.

Insurance companies have an incentive to compete. So, if they overcharge you or deny you service, you can go to another company. That is how it should work, but currently, in-state companies have oligopolies. We need to let insurance companies compete nation-wide so that there is real competition and prices do get driven down. The average amount of insurance companies per state is 4.0, of which many don't compete state-wide. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/insurer-participation-on-aca-marketplaces-2014-2019/

Price-fixing is illegal, so they won't all collude and double prices. Raise competition through allowing nation-wide competition. The cost of care is so high because some state require certain things such as hearing aids to be covered. If they don't have to, they can afford to lower prices and undercut their competition to get more customers.

You are assuming that the incompetent government will be able to reduce costs. When has it ever done that? The VA is utter garbage. https://observer.com/2019/04/veterans-affairs-troubles-trump-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong/

And insurance companies do get lower prices to a degree. They don't pay the price charged to people without insurance. They are given discounts for sending patients to that hospital. To pay for the discounts, they raise prices.

43% of Canadians wait over 4 weeks to see a specialist compared to 10% in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_healthcare_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Wait_times We are much more efficient. Although a sizable amount of people unfortunately cannot afford care, going by percentages, it wouldn't make sense for wait times to grow at these levels (assuming we kept a privatized system). Government healthcare is obviously inefficient.

If companies would save so much money by reducing sick days, why don't they provide it already? If it would be valuable for them to increase productivity, they would pay for it, as many companies do. 

This article discusses how medicare price controls have led to drug shortages https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/how-medicare-price-controls-have-contributed-drug-shortages

I'll look at your link for innovation. If government funding is doing most of the leg work, but a private company is actually just making slight adjustments and screwing us, I would have a problem with that. The government should sell a drug they invent and reduce my tax burden.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I went on to say that a few of the services that you outlined I was okay with paying for. I said I was perfectly fine with roads, police, and the fire department. I was hesitant on some education and didn't see how healthcare for others helped me.

Now, paying for other people's food stamps and subsidizing single mothers who have 10 children is something that I would not support. That doesn't help me. If you want to contribute to those people, fine. Just don't force me to at gunpoint. 
Summed up as: What's it it for me


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
except when they're reporters
he is only trying to help them cope with their delusions.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
OK BOOMER
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Tough love.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump loves everyone








































































Especially women
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Especially women.
Just the ones that let him grab by the pussy.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Just the ones that let him grab by the pussy.
Mmmm. The best type of consent: non-voluntary


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Mmmm. The best type of consent: non-voluntary


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Just remember, none of us would be alive today to mash keyboards if our fathers were too afraid to grab it.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, in that case, damn.

Trump must've really been a lady's guy, turning all 23 of them on like that.

(just don't tell Melania)

#GodBless
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
A diamond isn't really a girl's best friend.

It's the best friend that buys them for her.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
You know what they say...

Riches get Bitches

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
And Bitches get Itches.