Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Letter: Obamacare benefits

March 29, 2014

Advertisement

To the editor:

I have to say I am amazed! I talked to a friend about Obamacare and he said, “Last month, I was paying  $760 a month for a (catastrophic) policy. Thanks to ACA, I pay less than $10 a month for a silver policy with a $10 co-pay. And I save $9,000 a year.”

I myself tried last fall and due to the “glitch,” thought we were ineligible for the tax credit. After an appointment with the health department (quick and efficient), we found that the glitch is over. At 62 years old, we have a silver policy with a $5 co-pay, for $206 per month. Sixty percent of all Kansans (by income) can benefit from the ACA if they need health insurance.

Kansans whose incomes fall below the poverty level, including single parents and the working but still hurting, get no help and often go untreated. In Kansas, Medicaid goes only to the disabled, the elderly and children. The Kansas Legislature wants to keep it that way, even though we are already paying for expanded Medicaid, through our taxes. The Legislature refuses to pay even 10 percent of the cost to cover those in poverty.

A much healthier Kansas is around the corner, unless we allow the politicians to kill it, throwing a lot of us back into the ranks of the uninsurable. Hopefully  the thousands, across Kansas already being helped by this law will spread the word to others in need and voice their support to the Legislature.

Comments

James Howlette 4 months ago

We were already paying more for them before the ACA. We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world and even pay more in tax dollars towards healthcare than countries with completely centralized health systems. Our costs will go down now. Well, not as much as it will in the states where they expand medicare (which we're already paying for).

Even if that weren't the case, I'd gladly pay more in taxes (which I do) and work 60 hour weeks (which I do) to prevent just one person from having to go without health care treatment, even if they don't or can't work a job (which is not the case of single parents, as the example above). Why? Because it's basic human decency. I don't subscribe to the "I've got mine. You can get bent" philosophy.

I find your position monstrous. That is all.

14

Bart Johnson 4 months ago

You find it monstrous that I care about my family more than your family? If you care more about other people than your own family then you are a monster.

1

James Howlette 4 months ago

Your family isn't in immediate jeopardy, and neither is mine. This isn't about caring more for your family. This is about deliberately not caring about anyone else's.

6

Bob Forer 4 months ago

Mr. Howlette FTW!!!!!!!!

4

4 months ago

Holy cow Bart, are you serious? Financially, I care about your family more than you do about mine, because unlike you, I do not have children. I pay a higher tax rate than you do, so that you can have more $ in your pocket, supposedly for your children, though you could spend the extra cash on new toys for yourself if you wish. I also own a home and pay property tax to help educate children in my community. I am okay with this, in spite of the fact that we have plenty of people in the world, including highly educated ones, and don't especially need more. I am not wealthy and have very few luxuries, yet I have never for a millisecond resented supporting your on anyone else's children. You know why? Because I do not live in isolation, I live as part of a society, and what happens to your children will affect all of us. And, poor health care for others affects you, whether or not you are clever enough to realize it. Even if you're cold-hearted and selfish, you still benefit from the ACA.

Fortunately I have always been healthy, so I do not have a dramatic example, but here is a true one anyway: For many years I did not have decent health insurance (or in some years, any), and I was a student with little income, and so I did not have my wisdom teeth removed at a young age when it was most appropriate. By the time I finally had the insurance to have this done, the roots had grown and twisted into my jaw, and the surgery was far more risky, complex and EXPENSIVE than it would have been a few years earlier. This is likely a very common situation, so multiply it many thousands of times -- or multiply thousands of times the more serious health needs that are not dealt with until they are expensive emergencies. Do you truly not have the mental capacity to realize why, because of the way insurance works, and because of the way ER's are used, this greatly increases health costs for everyone? Including YOU? My guess is, you likely are clever enough to realize this, but the thought of doing something that is beneficial for others is more painful for you to bear than the unnecessarily high cost of health care in this country.

8

John Graham 4 months ago

You could make the same argument about those who can't afford healthcare without a subsidy. You could make the same argument about people that are on any government entitlement program. You have solved the county's problems, Bob. Quit whining, get more education/job skills in order to better yourself. That sounds like a good conservative point of view.

0

James Howlette 4 months ago

Yeah, but those other people aren't anarchists calling everyone else moochers. Sweets for the sweet, John.

6

Sean Oliver 4 months ago

A free society with citizens who enjoy liberty can only exist when every individual agrees to look out for one another, and everyone contributes some of their wealth towards that purpose. That's the absolutely fundamental basis of democracy and the free market. Adam Smith repeatedly stresses that all members of a society must chip in, otherwise you'd end up like a place without any taxes or governments - like Afghanistan. Without that social contract the rich would simply do whatever the hell they wanted, to you and 99% of society. You might feel better knowing that every year, only about .01% of your tax dollars goes to help the poor. Most of the rest is for defence, paying off the debt from past wars, and bailing out Wall St.

8

Brock Masters 4 months ago

"Everyone contributes some of their wealth towards that purpose.".....problem is there are many who contribute nothing.

There are those that take and have never contributed and never will

1

Sean Oliver 4 months ago

Sure, that exists, but that's a small number, and a small price to pay for civilization. We're humans, not perfect money-making worker drones.

6

John Graham 4 months ago

The real problem is not that a small percentage of the population are forever takers. The real problem is that small number is growing larger (both the actual number as well as the percentage of the total population) all the time. There are also more people than ever receiving government handouts of one kind or another. The trend is going in the wrong direction and accelerating. At some point those of us paying will not be able to support those taking more than they are giving. What happens then? The data is there that the size of entitlement programs is growing at a rate that can not be sustained indefinitely. Helping others is fine but at some point at the current rate there will be more receiving handouts than payers. It just doesn't work. Then civilization doesn't work.

0

James Howlette 4 months ago

Something as simple as a raised minimum wage would elevate many people above the income eligibility requirements for the handouts you detest so much. Personally, I'm tired of subsidizing Walmart's profit line - whether I shop there or not.

7

Bob Forer 4 months ago

You are spot on, James. We taxpayers subsidize the billionare Wal-Mart profiteers who haven't the decency to pay their employees a basic living wage. We end up paying for it in food stamps and other entitllements to the working.

This country has sufficient wealth that anyone willijng to work 40 hours per week should not have to seek government for a minimal standard of living. Anything less is simply indecent.

9

John Graham 4 months ago

No one forces anyone to work at Walmart. If you don't like the pay and benefits Walmart offers then go somewhere else. This is nothing more than the liberal unionized mentality that the employees should tell the employer how things will be done. If you don't like the job go somewhere else. To sum it up, like Bob stated earlier, quit whining, get more education /job skills so you can get a better job.

0

James Howlette 4 months ago

Oh puhleeze. That's an argument when we have zero unemployment. Unless you're arguing that we should pay people to not work. As long as there are more people wanting to work than there are available positions to work, there are going to be people who have very little choice in where they work or how much they're paid.

4

Bob Forer 4 months ago

John, why do you have such contempt for unskilled folks who are less fortunate than yourself? What did they ever do to you, and how does a law which would requires a minimum living wage hurt a wealthy doctor like yourself.

Or are you just greedy and don't like paying any tax at all on the hundreds of thousands of dollars you make per year?

5

John Graham 4 months ago

Bob when a poster on this site complained about having to work 60 hours to support his family you told him to quit whining, get better educated or learn more job skills so he wouldn't have to work more than 40 hours per week. Why didn't you complain his employer didn't pay enough? Why don't you tell the Walmart employees (who you are so worried about) to do the same things you told him to do?

2

James Howlette 4 months ago

Somehow I doubt he's working 60 hours a week at minimum wage, but it is still very satisfying to bring up personal responsibility to Bart after he blames all the poor people for forcing him to work so much.

3

Bob Forer 4 months ago

John, you obviously didn't get it. I was simply throwing Bart's usual, predictable, and spurious arguments back at him.

2

Brock Masters 4 months ago

Would we be better off or worse off if Wal Mart closed tomorrow? Who would step in and employ all the people that work at Wal Mart today? Most workers at Wal Mart make more than minimum wage.

Why is it that Wal Mart has a responsibility to create jobs that pay a living wage but you and I don't?

0

James Howlette 4 months ago

Walmart isn't going to close tomorrow if they have to raise minimum wage, and each and every one of us who creates jobs is bound by the employment laws regulating how we pay our employees. Your argument is invalid.

2

Brock Masters 4 months ago

James are you so insecure that you feel it necessary to declare people's arguments invalid? No one said they'd close if the minimum wage was increased. I asked the question if people would be better or worse off if they closed their doors.

If Wal Mart is evil then we'd be better off if they closed, but if we'd be worse off then maybe they add value.

It is easy for James to point the finger and say Wal Mart must offer a living whe but Jimmy doesn't offer any jobs at all.

0

James Howlette 4 months ago

Invalid: deficient in substance or cogency; weak.

It's not "insecurity" that leads me to that conclusion, but the weak basis for your argument. That's pretty much the opposite of "insecurity." By asking the question, you (and many people who have recently been making similar arguments along the Fox talking points) are implying somehow either that Walmart would close as a result of raising minimum wage or that the store is so vital the economy that no other retailer would step in to employ those poor workers. Neither is true.

It's also completely irrelevant whether this "Jimmy" person you're attempting to belittle by nicknaming employs anyone. You're a bad guesser, but it's still irrelevant to the discussion.

As a taxpaying citizen, I object to paying for Walmart to underpay its workers to the point that they need public assistance. As a taxpayer and citizen, I am a stakeholder in this discussion, whether I employ one person or one million. Or nobody at all.

2

Brock Masters 4 months ago

Sure you're insecure otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to declare my argument invalid. You'd be secure enough to let your counter stand alone.

Regardless, I made no argument. I didn't say nor do I think that Wal Mart would close if the minimum wage was raised. They already pay above minimum wage for most of their jobs.

James, how much should Wal Mart pay its employees? Obvious they pay enough to attract workers? The point wasn't whether you could comment on the issue it is simply that you are real good at criticizing Wal Mart for employing people,while you do not. Think what the coat to you would be if Wal Mart didn't employ people. You'd really be screaming about how much you had to pay for food stamps then.

0

James Howlette 4 months ago

Repeating a fundamental attribution error does not cause it to be true.

0

Brock Masters 4 months ago

Then why do you continue? Go ahead you can have the last word Jimmy.

0

James Howlette 4 months ago

Oh, Brock. (shakes head). You could have just walked away the first time around instead of persisting with a weak Fox News style "I'm just asking questions" approach. It's just so intellectually lazy.

A flounce AND an attempt at button pushing/insulting AND a weak Pee Wee Herman style comeback? I think I've got enough squares marked to win bingo.

3

Richard Heckler 4 months ago

Sponges eh?

Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid.

Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it.

More on this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

8

Mike Ford 4 months ago

As someone else whose benefitted from ACA I'm sick and tired of the repeated lie movement of uninformed conservatives. If you have no facts don't talk. I've worked fulltime at the same job for sixteen years. Three years ago my employer's plan through United Healthcare was dumped because people used the insurance and they were old and sick. I have a minor pre existing condition as does my wife. We were dinged from having health insurance for two years until the ACA took affect. From 1998 to 2011 I paid premiums for my insurance and purchased my meds out of my pocket so I'm not a leech Mr. Uninformed. I'm had three jobs since 1992 and I started paying taxes in 1986 at my first high school job so any benefit I'm getting now from ACA has been paid in many times over. I'm an educated person who understands the necessity of taxes in a functioning society. The problem is now there are many uninformed and illogical people who think a society can function without taxation. We have people who scream about taxation during a period when the taxes have been incredibly low. These people make no sense. They elect people like Mr. Brownback and who listens to Art Laugher and neither of them make any sense. Stop letting society wrecking conservatives grab the mike especially when much of what they say is repeated nonsense. Stop letting these willfully uninformed people call failure on something that's working. The reason they're angry is because the ACA is working, Facts should trump myth but then again this is Kansas and facts don't matter in the other 104 counties.

17

James Howlette 4 months ago

Oh, puhleeze. I'll write a letter that you can give to your kids,

"Dear kids, I'm not being forced by Obamacare to work this extra day. I'm not being taxed more because of it. I just like more money, and I like to complain. I also lack empathy, so stop bugging me. Go play with your mom. Love, Dad."

10

Bart Johnson 4 months ago

Mr. Howlette, you have no heart.

0

James Howlette 4 months ago

Ironic accusation is ironic. The more accurate assessment is not that I have no heart but that I have no sympathy for whiners making hyperbolic claims.

4

Mike Ford 4 months ago

I heard this nonsense on Dana and Parks KMBZ the other day. Nothing but repeated fibs.

2

Mike Ford 4 months ago

from 2000 to 2008 you more than likely voted for a person who blew billions upon billions on no bid contracts for their buddies (Haliburton), and left unfinished construction projects and who knows what else. Were you complaining then? probably not. I guess ethnicity is the real reason for your outrage......you're so publically courageous for admitting this. There are so many courageous conservatives who admit their true reasons for outrage....who knew?

9

Bart Johnson 4 months ago

Mr. Ford, I'm an anarchist. I vote for Mickey Mouse, not war-mongering conservatives.

0

Mike Ford 4 months ago

oh so you're one of these people who never left the concept of fiefdoms in Middle Ages Europe. The movie version of this is "The New World" where the Powhattan Confederacy indigenous peoples visit the stockade the English built on a tidal flat with no potable water and a bunch of arguing disorganized finger pointers wanting no government. Such a functioning experiment. It's a shame in 2014 that there's still people wanting a 17th century disaster foisted upon the rest of us. Even indigenous peoples had a confederacy of tribes acting in a self governing way. I won't take you seriously anymore.

6

Seth Peterson 4 months ago

He's really not worth discussing matters such as this with, as it is something that has to deal with reality.

6

Brock Masters 4 months ago

Wasn't the ACA website a no-bid contract to a friend? Any outrage about that?

1

James Howlette 4 months ago

See what I mean? A google search takes five seconds on this one.

2

Rick Johnson 4 months ago

Bart, I agree with you 100%. What most people fail to realize is that someone has to pay for their health insurance. It is not free! So those of you who are leeching can thank their hard working neighbors for their discounted/free health insurance!!

Repeal Obamacare!!

3

James Howlette 4 months ago

We were already paying for it. ER visits. Higher hospital bills. Lost worker productivity. Figure out how you're going to replace the plan, then get back to me with that whole repeal notion.

16

Sean Oliver 4 months ago

If you've had employer provided health insurance all of your life, guess who's been paying for it - you. Instead of paying you more money, your employer buys very expensive US health care insurance for you. But you don't even realize how much money you're losing. Think of how much more cash you'd take home with free government provided health care. The fundamental basis of democracy and a successful free market is a government which collects taxes. Taxes are then re-invested into providing a minimum standard of living for everyone. This not only sustains widespread economic growth better and more efficiently than the market does, it's the right thing to do. If we had government financed health care here, your income would INCREASE. That's because we have the worst possible health care insurance system on earth, which allows insurers and pharmaceuticals to continually raise prices on you, but you don't realize it.

11

Mike Ford 4 months ago

really and since you probably don't have health insurance who'll pay for you when you arrive at the emergency room for a routine yet unchecked health ailment? don't worry we've already paid for you for many years with increased premiums.

3

Mark Rainey 4 months ago

Main point is to force everyone to pay for their own healthcare, subsidized or not. Our current system is the one where some people get free healthcare-and we all pay. people with no insurance are the "moochers".

5

Richard Heckler 4 months ago

Offering one more option that is better yet than Obamacare = smart business.

IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 would include the following.

Wellness /prescription drugs / hospital / surgical / outpatient services / primary and preventive care / emergency services / dental / mental health / home health / physical therapy / rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) / vision care / hearing services including hearing aids / chiropractic / medical equipment / palliative care / long term care

No deductibles / No Co-pays http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf ( note substantial savings)

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources Physicians for a National Health Program

5

Richard Heckler 4 months ago

Medicare for ALL the cure for Obamacare Flaws http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/27/obamacare-flaws-medicare-for-all

Your Doctor Co-Pays are Too High

Realizing that such expenses might turn a medical illness into a financial catastrophe, you consider waiting to 2014, when you can buy health insurance through the new exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). You would, however, be disappointed to learn that the mid-level “silver” plans offered on the exchange are only required to cover 70% of your annual health care expenses. Out-of-pocket “cost-sharing” – in the form of copays, deductibles, or co-insurance – could go as high as $12,700 a year for your family, depending on your income.

Now those fortunate enough to have insurance through their employer might hope to be free from this phenomenon. The protection, however, is only partial, as plans in the employer market have been trending in a similar direction for years. Between 2006 and 2012, for instance, the percentage of covered workers with a deductible of $1,000 or more tripled, as did those with a deductible of more than $2,000.

Even those sufficiently impoverished to be eligible for public assistance are not immune: in January, the administration moved to allow states to charge Medicaid patients higher copayments for drugs, emergency room use and doctor’s visits.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/august/your-doctor-copays-are-too-high

Under this plan all are making a contribution to their own care. BINGO!

2

Bob Smith 4 months ago

If you are getting something for nothing, then somewhere, somebody is getting nothing for something.

3

Richard Heckler 4 months ago

Where is the something for nothing? There is no Free Lunch for the low income and middle class America. Do some homework.

6

Mark Rainey 4 months ago

Something for nothing was our old system. This system is an attempt to force people to pay their share.2010 nearly 1/2 of all births were paid for through medicaid.

9

John Graham 4 months ago

As soon as there are subsidies someone is not paying their "share". Subsidies force some to pay more than their share so others don't have to pay their full share. Your birth rate on Medicaid argument doesn't prove anything since Medicaid is being expanded in most areas, the birthrate on Medicaid will most likely increase.

0

Steve Crockett 4 months ago

How about all the people who work 60 hours that aren't offered insurance at their jobs and can now way afford 25% of there earnings for health care. They're not moochers. People have to fill those positions and deserve to be able to access the medical system through something other than the emergency room.

11

Mark Rainey 4 months ago

Subsidies mean one hotel cost taxpayers more than another, but a subsidized insurance rate is greater than no rate at all, which is what we had. By requiring everyone to pay in to the health,(or fire), department, the overall cost to all decreases. Before we were paying the full cost of health care for the uninsured (Whom need care).

2

John Graham 4 months ago

You are correct that people paying something is better than nothing. What I was trying to point out is that someone receiving a subsidy is not paying their share. They are only paying a portion of their share, with the rest being paid by others. People paying something is better than nothing but let's not get carried away that everyone is now paying their share. That simply is not the case.

0

4 months ago

People who get a subsidy for ACA more often than not are not getting their fair share of income. If the subsidy pains you so much, then among the solutions to minimize it is to raise the minimum wage, so that many workers will need less subsidy for health care.

4

Dick Sengpiehl 4 months ago

Very good letter. There are many more success stories which need to be published. All the right wing does is criticize this effort to enable previously uninsured people to purchase their own plan rather than go to emergency rooms which we all are paying for anyway. There will always be people who characterize government assistance as enabling people to "leach". Reminds me of the 60s when certain conservatives touted the "Cadillac" welfare recipients who were supposedly receiving food stamps who were not eligible. The American health care system in reality has been the best system that money can buy with the poorest results in the industrialized world. In the long run after I'm long gone we WILL have a one payer system. An employer based system will never work.

11

Richard Payton 4 months ago

The cost of this law at this point from my understanding is $80 million just on the web site. Don't think we America's can continue to spend when the Chinese call in the loan. Spending money we don't have becomes a problem at some point.

0

James Howlette 4 months ago

The cost of all those pointless votes to repeal it cost over $50 million alone. But if one of them were to be successful, guess what would happen? It would add to the deficit. That's right, kids. Getting rid of Obamacare would cost us more than it would save. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-repealing-obamacare-adds-to-deficit/

So if you're going to cry about repealing the ACA in the name of deficit savings, you better come up with a better alternative plan and get it into place first.

9

Julius Nolan 4 months ago

How dare anyone write an honest, factual LTE. The Obama haters and all the right wing nuts will go ballistic.

13

Steve King 4 months ago

The cost of the Law is miniscule compared to the benefit to the population. How much do we give in foreign aid each year? How much did we just offer Ukraine? How did we afford $1 Billion a month in Iraq? Heck, I'll bet that $80 Million is about how much hospitality costs are for Congress each year. We have plenty of resources, we just don't use them wisely.

And for that old argument "I'm subsidizing you" that's just part of being in a "group". Just as before in any group health care the "pool" dictated the savings. The bigger the pool the bigger the savings.

You could use the same argument that "your" taxes are being used to build an interstate highway in New York and since you'd never been to the state or planned to visit, your nickels shouldn't go into that "group" expense. Or since you'll never be in the cockpit of a fighter jet your tax money shouldn't go toward buying one. Or if you never fly your taxes shouldn't go toward funding aviation. And how much tax money are we talking about. Do you lose $250 of your taxes per year going to ACA to help others enroll? Do you even know how much? It's based on income levels so those that need help (subsidy) get it.

And by the way, my health care costs under the ACA went down $12,000 a year with better coverage, lower deductible and no subsidy. And I'm happy to be able to contribute a little to the benefit of others who will join the group and in turn continue to reduce my health care costs.

12

Bob Smith 4 months ago

Questions about the ACA: "…1. How many people have actually enrolled? This is the big one. I’ve written about it a lot for a reason: The headline sign-up numbers are often described as enrollment numbers. They’re not. A significant portion of people who sign up for coverage aren’t paying their first month’s premium, and are therefore never enrolled. In California, it’s about 15 percent of sign-ups. In Wisconsin and Georgia, it’s closer to 20 percent. In Nevada and Vermont, it’s more than 30 percent. Until we know how many people have paid, we won’t know how many people got covered…." Read the rest @ http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/28/6-unanswered-questions-about-obamacare

1

Julius Nolan 4 months ago

Factual links please, not Obama haters links.

5

Mike Ford 4 months ago

nonsense......I've already paid four premiums. so much for willful fibbing.

6

Chris Scafe 4 months ago

All the greatest things that humans have done, we've done together.

6

Richard Heckler 4 months ago

What could households do with money that goes to co-pays and deductibles?

  1. Home Improvements = jobs

  2. Invest in a green annuity

  3. Create a college investment account for children

  4. Purchase a fuel efficient auto = money saved and secures jobs in the automotive industry

  5. Buy gifts for a lover which improves ones quality of life and boosts a local economy

  6. Buy a second home in the Rocky Mountains = helps reduce number of homes for sale

  7. Keep an existing vehicle in top running condition = dollars saved and clean air

  8. Landscape a yard to reduce mowing substantially which requires far less water = conservation of natural resources and more money in the wallet

  9. Donate to a local zoo or library.

  10. PAY OFF CREDIT CARDS

IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for ALL is far better for America than any option on the table !

No deductibles / No Co-pays http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf ( note substantial savings)

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources Physicians for a National Health Program

4

Belinda Willhite 4 months ago

Imagine, if all the millions of people who approved of the health care law, stood up for it. Oh, wait, we did that at two elections and voted for a president who signed it into law. We will need to step up our game if we want to keep it. The GOP keeps shooting their mouths off and vote to repeal the law, yet have no plan to replace it. I, for one, love my ObamaCare, here in Iowa. Shame on those states that did not expand Medicaid. They are just downright cruel, in my opinion. I am so glad we left Lawrence nearly 10 years ago. We still have kids living there, so we visit. Shame on those who aren't speaking up. We have freedom of speech too and the right to scream at the top of our lungs for the vulnerable, who have no voice.

7

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Thank you so much, Stephen, for this letter. It would seems that the more good news that comes out about the ACA, the angrier people get who were opposed to it. They seem to be gnashing their teeth at the very idea, let alone the reality, that the ACA is working, working really well and people are benefiting from it.

There are health problems that are very serious and need to be taken care of now, they are not options.

People also need to understand the concept of maintaining wellness and how to do this. We also need to understand that some illnesses are not caused by anything that anyone did but happen though no fault of the sick person.

2

Don Frey 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Mankind would cease to exist if we stopped aiding one another

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.