Gallup: Percentage of uninsured drops to lowest level since 2008

posted at 4:01 pm on April 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

It’s based on a big sample (43,000+ adults) but I notice via Memeorandum that even some lefties are being cautious in drawing grand conclusions from the data. Jonathan Bernstein cites as evidence for skepticism the fact that Gallup showed what he regards as an inexplicable *increase* in the rate of uninsured in the middle of last year. Is that really inexplicable, though? Seems like a logical byproduct of insurers dumping people from their existing plans en masse as O-Care took effect. Six months later, as people whose plans were canceled have migrated to new coverage and as some previously uninsured have finally enrolled, the numbers are way down.

Gallup’s not the only organization to show the number of uninsured falling, needless to say. The question isn’t whether it’s happening, it’s how sharply and among which demographics.

gal1

The number of uninsured leaped after the financial crisis struck in 2008, with massive layoffs severing some people from coverage, and now it’s headed downward again thanks to the glories of state coercion in insurance purchases. (The Rand Corporation, in its own recent survey, found the rate of uninsured dropping from 20.9 percent last fall to 16.6 percent on March 22.) The AP eyeballed the numbers and concluded that ObamaCare is indeed reducing the rate of the insured — but not by as much as the White House claims:

Coming a week after the close of the health care law’s first enrollment season, Gallup’s numbers suggest a more modest impact on coverage than statistics cited by the Obama administration.

The administration says more than 7 million have signed up for subsidized private plans through new insurance markets. Additionally, 3 million previously uninsured people gained coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion…

The White House figure of 7 million-plus insurance exchange sign-ups includes insured people who switched their previous coverage, as well as people who have not paid their first month’s premium, and who would therefore still be uninsured.

Also, Gallup is counting just adults, while the administration figures include children as well.

If the White House is overcounting, how many uninsured people have really obtained insurance this year? The AP’s back-of-the-envelope math based on Gallup’s numbers puts it in the ballpark of 3.5 million (i.e. 17.1 percent uninsured a few months ago versus 15.6 percent now). Rand’s recent study, which was completed before the big sign-up surge in late March, estimated that six million people had gained insurance under the law but that only two million of them had been previously uninsured. Of those who gained coverage, how many bought a plan on the ObamaCare exchanges, though, and how many signed up for Medicaid under O-Care’s expansion? That’s hard to say too, but these numbers are interesting. The first column represents the percentage who were uninsured as of late last year and the second column represents how many are still uninsured now:

gal2

The lower-income group, which includes Medicaid enrollees, has naturally seen a steeper drop than the other groups. Some signed up for Medicaid and some got a federal subsidy to buy an O-Care exchange plan, but it’s unclear how many are in each group. That’s another question that health-care wonks will have their eye on going forward. Stay tuned.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Do NOT comply.

obama never does.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 4:03 PM

OT – obama just warned LilliPutin, again, on Ukraine, heh.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 4:04 PM

I will not comply because I am a free citizen of the United States, not a subject of its government. I consider non-compliance with this monstrosity and the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that are to be enforced by an unelected bureaucracy, and that have left a gigantic carbon footprint on our environment and the United States Constitution, a duty.

Non-compliance is my executive order, and that order reads in part that I do not recognize any government’s claim on my action or inaction in the marketplace, nor upon any personal information I am unwilling to divulge.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 4:05 PM

This needs to be followed up.

In the last two days of the obama’care’ marathon toward the 7.1 million ‘who signed up’, not who paid and such, the numbers increased live crazy.

Last Friday people who’re on Medicare kept getting notices to “complete their obama’care’ enrollment process. They called radio stations, stating that they never initiated any process.

Looks like HHS/Nurse Ratched, gave the Medicare lists, with all the data at hand, to the goons who type in the info, and let them go at it.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Unemployed getting on state insurance.

portlandon on April 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Also, Gallup is counting just adults, while the administration figures include children as well.

Well, why not the family dog? Maybe sheep and cattle? They don’t pay premiums either.

Erich66 on April 7, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Why is there an emphasis on health care coverage/insurance. Health insurance is not healthcare. This law adds a boatload of red tape, which means that doctors and hospitals can see fewer patients. What good is health insurance if you can’t see a doctor?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 4:10 PM

I don’t believe it. 6-8 million lost their insurance in the individual market and 3 million more on medicaid (is that really insurance? NO) meaning that at best 4 million more are insured and 2 million at least. That is using the lying liar’s numbers.

jukin3 on April 7, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Did anyone notice it is still above where it was before Obamacare passed?

Tater Salad on April 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM

What good is health insurance if you can’t see a doctor?

Comrade, is feature not bug. It is going to be a glorious future, GLORIOUS!!!!!

jukin3 on April 7, 2014 at 4:16 PM

which was completed before the big sign-up surge in late March,

The big whhhaaatttt ?

burrata on April 7, 2014 at 4:16 PM

O/T,Is it just me or is the font on this site smaller?

docflash on April 7, 2014 at 4:16 PM

This is not an actual measure of the uninsured rate.

It’s a poll asking people if they are insured. If someone thinks they have bought insurance, but actually has not, they will respond in the positive. If someone does not have insurance, but is invested in Obama, they may respond in the positive.

A small increase in welfare insurance may account for a bit of a change, but there has been no actual increase in private coverage.

forest on April 7, 2014 at 4:16 PM

This, to quote Charlie Sheen, is called “Winning“…

oscarwilde on April 7, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Also, Gallup is counting just adults, while the administration figures include children as well.

Correction :
Also, Gallup is counting just adults, while the administration figures include children as well, IN MEXICO

burrata on April 7, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Heck, some people are so dense they think the implementation of Obamacare means they automatically got free insurance.

forest on April 7, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Since 2008?
So we’re back to where we were under Bush? When we had to blow trillions of dollars and take over 1/5 the economy?

Ha ha ha

gwelf on April 7, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Obama 2008: The level of uninsured in this country is an unforgivable travesty!

Obama 2014: Hey – We’ve reached a milestone, lowest number of uninsured since 2008! ObamaCare is working!

gwelf on April 7, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Let me get this straight.
There was a lower percentage of uninsured Americans in 2008 when there was no mandate?

We passed a trillion dollar law that cannot get the rates of the uninsured below where they were prior to Obama being elected. Talk about setting the bar low.

This is insanity.

airupthere on April 7, 2014 at 4:25 PM

So we had 40-50 million people without healthcare in 2008,
JiziahCAIR enrolled 7 million ( or so they say ),
while more than 6 million lost their health insurance ,
and the employer mandate has yet to kick in.

So this a good thing how exactly ?

burrata on April 7, 2014 at 4:27 PM

And the law was supposed to give Health Insurance to the ~35-40 Million uninsured and create 400,000 jobs in the first year and save the average family $2,500. Way to move the goal posts people. Looking at just that graph, we are pretty much back to were we started in 2008. Stagnant.

Johnnyreb on April 7, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Imagine the honest ObamaCare campaign:

“Uh, if you like your doctor, I know better. If you like your plan, I know better. Uh, the average family will see a rise in their insurance costs and their deductibles. It’s time you folks paid your fare share. Uh, we’ll spend trillions of dollars we don’t have to do this. And why must we make all these sacrifices. To return the uninsured numbers of one year ago.”

gwelf on April 7, 2014 at 4:32 PM

It’s based on a big sample (43,000+ adults) but I notice via Memeorandum that even some lefties are being cautious in drawing grand conclusions from the data. Jonathan Bernstein cites as evidence for skepticism the fact that Gallup showed what he regards as an inexplicable *increase* in the rate of uninsured in the middle of last year. Is that really inexplicable, though? Seems like a logical byproduct of insurers dumping people from their existing plans en masse as O-Care took effect. Six months later, as people whose plans were canceled have migrated to new coverage and as some previously uninsured have finally enrolled, the numbers are way down.

..before everyone vapor locks here — and I confess I only looked at the pictures not reading the book — but the range of this is 2008 through today? And the 14.4% ramped up to 16% and only came back down to 15.6% over four years?

The take away is a variation on the old “saved or created” mantra, I am guessing.

Otherwise, it’s the usual crap shoveled out on to we proles (here at Hot Gas) so we can rant and rave.

The War Planner on April 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Are the “uninsured” counted the same way as the “unemployed”?
If you’re not shopping for insurance you’re not really uninsured, right?

dentarthurdent on April 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Looking at just that graph, we are pretty much back to were we started in 2008. Stagnant.

Johnnyreb on April 7, 2014 at 4:29 PM

So what ? The Husseins have more money, they’ve had a lavish life, they’ll be rolling in billions for the rest of their lives,
as also those who profited from the mutt-muncher and
patient-dumper’s healing of the planet.
It’s not about us little people donchano ??

burrata on April 7, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Let me get this straight.
There was a lower percentage of uninsured Americans in 2008 when there was no mandate?

We passed a trillion dollar law that cannot get the rates of the uninsured below where they were prior to Obama being elected. Talk about setting the bar low.

airupthere on April 7, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Libs set the bar for setting the bar low.

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 4:36 PM

airupthere on April 7, 2014 at 4:25 PM

burrata on April 7, 2014 at 4:27 PM

..these are excellent points. As I said, I only looked at the pictures.

The War Planner on April 7, 2014 at 4:36 PM

When you threaten people with the wrath of the newly-weaponized-for-political-purposes IRS, it’s a safe bet a lot of people will sign up for this turdburger.

CurtZHP on April 7, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Salahuddin on April 6, 2014 at 6:38 PM

 
So if it was up to you you’d make things pretty much exactly the way they were before Obamacare?
 
rogerb on April 6, 2014 at 6:49 PM

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM

A Regime that has been caught on multiple occasions with MILLIONS of FAKE Facebook followers, and apparently do so as a matter of routine now, claiming they have a certain number of ObamaGlitch sign-ups.

Ok, sure.

Someone, anyone, please cite for me A number, ANY number that this Regime has released, that can be proven to be 100% accurate, spin free, and completely truthful. Just one number is all I’m asking.

Meople on April 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM

A 3% drop from 18% to 15% is not huge. It is about 1/6 lower than it was, so how about a little perspective HA?

earlgrey on April 7, 2014 at 4:40 PM

I wouldn’t be so sure about this. I was behind two women at the grocery store last night and overheard one woman tell the other that Obamacare was going to save her a lot of money. The other woman responded that she tried to register online, but could never get the website to work. In response to this, the first lady said, “You don’t have to worry about that. You automatically got insurance at the end of March.”

I intervened into the conversation and asked the lady what she meant by “automatically” getting insurance. She told me that everyone that did not have insurance by the end of March was automatically given insurance. When I tried to explain to her that this wasn’t the case, she wouldn’t hear it. She said that her and several of her friends insurance were cancelled and that none of them signed up because they wanted the “automatic” coverage. I kept trying to explain that this was not how Obamacare worked, but she looked at me like I was stupid. So, I let it drop. How many people are walking around believing the same thing?

ReaganWasRight on April 7, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Meople on April 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Please. Name one that is 60% accurate.

jukin3 on April 7, 2014 at 4:43 PM

How many people are walking around believing the same thing?

ReaganWasRight on April 7, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Probably millions – the obamatron zombie apocalypse has begun.

dentarthurdent on April 7, 2014 at 4:43 PM

How many people are walking around believing the same thing?

ReaganWasRight on April 7, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Also – “you can’t fix stupid”.

dentarthurdent on April 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Please. Name one that is 60% accurate.

jukin3 on April 7, 2014 at 4:43 PM

While true, I was trying to avoid any grey areas.

I posed this type of question on another forum last Friday asking for one truthful statement from the Regime.

No one could come up with anything other than, “I’ve got a phone and a pen”.

Meople on April 7, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Always fun to see how people word things, percentage of uninsured drops to lowest level since 2008 is certainly true, but so is percentage of people uninsured a full point higher than Bush’s last year as President. One sounds good for bammy, the other not so much.

clearbluesky on April 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM

it’s going to get interesting when all of the local TV stations start getting those calls about how the insurance company should be looked into because:

1. I went to use my insurance and found out I don’t have insurance.
2. I went to use my insurance and had to pay because of $6000 deductible.
3. I went to use my insurance and found out that my doctor or hospital doesn’t take Obama-democrat care.
4. I was out of town and went to use my insurance and had to pay full price even though I have the platinum plan.

jukin3 on April 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Since 2008, eh? So, you’re telling me that more people had insurance under President Bush, without Obamacare………Hmmmmmmmmm. Nope, not surprised.

devan95 on April 7, 2014 at 4:56 PM

So we start with 47 million Americans uninsured (by the administrations own numbers) and then we add the 5 million who lose their coverage due to Obamacare and we then subtract 7 million or fewer who sign up for new insurance – and pay for it. I get something around 45 million still uninsured. What do you get?

But, wow, is that progress or what! No wonder the MSM is cheering Obama’s accomplishments! And just think all it took was for Obama to turn 1/6th of the economy up-side down and inconvenience tens of millions of people and run roughshod over the finer points of our Constitution. But, boy, with those results who won’t cheer?

Fred 2 on April 7, 2014 at 4:57 PM

The publicity helped a lot with Medicaid enrollment. Many people who had been eligible under the old guidelines but never signed up chose to do so now, plus many new were eligible, too, in those states which opted in.

But it may be early to start counting all those lower-income people who are supposed to get “subsidies” just yet. First of all, the subsidies are still being litigated, the law didn’t grant them to the federal exchange.

Secondly, the subsidies themselves come in the form of tax credits in the next year when you file your tax returns. That means those lower-income enrollees will have to pay the FULL PRICE of the overpriced premiums for a year, then get the money back. Most of them probably didn’t understand this or how much they would have to fund out of their pockets. Let’s see how many pay those high premiums.

And then, let’s see how many keep paying them for a year.

Adjoran on April 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Secondly, the subsidies themselves come in the form of tax credits in the next year when you file your tax returns. That means those lower-income enrollees will have to pay the FULL PRICE of the overpriced premiums for a year, then get the money back. Most of them probably didn’t understand this or how much they would have to fund out of their pockets. Let’s see how many pay those high premiums.

Adjoran on April 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I’m not sure about this. I have a relative that signed up for Obamacare and the subsidies were applied directly to his premium at BCBS. He is 38 years old and got a gold plan with dental for $78/month. The unsubsidized cost would have been $390. Of course, this really pisses me off because I get nothing and pay a ton of money for a plan with a huge deductible and no dental.

ReaganWasRight on April 7, 2014 at 5:13 PM

There will be no repeal of Obamacare. In five years what’s left of the GOP will be running as “protectors” and better “managers’ of nationalized health care.

vilebody on April 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM

ReaganWasRight on April 7, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Is your relative a registered (D)? Given the weaponizing of the IRS and the complete absence of any consequences whatsoever, I assume this tactic is employed throughout our Wealthcare system as well.

Meople on April 7, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Is your relative a registered (D)? Given the weaponizing of the IRS and the complete absence of any consequences whatsoever, I assume this tactic is employed throughout our Wealthcare system as well.

Meople on April 7, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Nope. He’s a conservative, but was laid off from his job and could only find part-time work. They’ll only give him 28 hours per week because of Obamacare. He doesn’t brag about it and he’s actually quite embarrassed by it. It just makes me mad because I bust my ass and get worse insurance than people that do nothing at all.

ReaganWasRight on April 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM

That means those lower-income enrollees will have to pay the FULL PRICE of the overpriced premiums for a year, then get the money back.
Adjoran on April 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM

The option exists to get the tax credit in advance and have the government send the money directly to the insurance company. The insurer credits the amount towards the cost of the premium, and decreases how much the customer will pay each month.

lynncgb on April 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM

I don’t care how many numbers they want to fabricate, from everyone that I have polled o’care is as good as dead and the number of uninsured has skyrocketed, not declined.

Lying liars will always lie.

Diluculo on April 7, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Nope. He’s a conservative, but was laid off from his job and could only find part-time work. They’ll only give him 28 hours per week because of Obamacare. He doesn’t brag about it and he’s actually quite embarrassed by it. It just makes me mad because I bust my ass and get worse insurance than people that do nothing at all.

ReaganWasRight on April 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Yep, I know what you’re saying. And now, businesses can’t even tell the truth and say that ObamaGlitch is the reason for them limiting hours and laying off staff.

But for you and me, that’s exactly the point of the entire system. Government picking winners and losers. Income redistribution from one segment to another.

They don’t care about level of choice, or the quality of care, or the sky rocketing costs to us. They only care that their income redistribution scam is at full speed.

And if the GOP thinks it’s going collapse on it’s own, they’re kidding themselves and lying to us all. It won’t. Obama and the Dims won’t let it collapse. They’ll prop it up no matter what the costs, and no matter what laws they have to break to do it.

Meople on April 7, 2014 at 5:34 PM

There will be no repeal of Obamacare. In five years what’s left of the GOP will be running as “protectors” and better “managers’ of nationalized health care.

vilebody on April 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM

…that seems to be…what’s going on!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2014 at 5:34 PM

There will be no repeal of Obamacare. In five years what’s left of the GOP will be running as “protectors” and better “managers’ of nationalized health care.

vilebody on April 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Yep, they’re already floating little balloons out there to try to lessen the pain on the GOPe wing of the party.

I don’t think it will take 5 years though. I think we’ll all be let in on the horrible truth just after the 2016 election, if not the first of next year.

Meople on April 7, 2014 at 5:47 PM

Humm. Obamamath I suppose.
But examine the graph (if it is believable) … I see 14.6% uninsured as of 2008. At the other end (post partial implementation of Obamacare … depending upon HIS mood this week) of the graph … where are we? Q1-2014 the graph says 15.6% uninsured.

Only in Obamaville is 15.6% SMALLER than 14.6%

I wonder when the Manure Spreading Prestitutes will comprehend this and REPORT IT … correctly?
Again, I can dream can’t I?

Moron POTUS leading moron citizens.

Missilengr on April 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM

I don’t think the # covered is as critical as the # of doctors who can absorb the decrease in payer mix ratio.

lineholder on April 7, 2014 at 5:51 PM

lynncgb on April 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Is that one of those “honor system” provisions?

lineholder on April 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM

“If you like your insurance plan…you can keep your insurance plan…Period… If you like your doctor…you can keep your doctor…Period… Your premiums will go down by $2500 per month…I cannot tell a lie…”

bimmcorp on April 7, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Secondly, the subsidies themselves come in the form of tax credits in the next year when you file your tax returns. That means those lower-income enrollees will have to pay the FULL PRICE of the overpriced premiums for a year, then get the money back. Most of them probably didn’t understand this or how much they would have to fund out of their pockets. Let’s see how many pay those high premiums.

Adjoran on April 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I’m not sure about this. I have a relative that signed up for Obamacare and the subsidies were applied directly to his premium at BCBS. He is 38 years old and got a gold plan with dental for $78/month. The unsubsidized cost would have been $390. Of course, this really pisses me off because I get nothing and pay a ton of money for a plan with a huge deductible and no dental.

ReaganWasRight on April 7, 2014 at 5:13 PM

You are correct Reagan. The whole point of being forced into using Healthcare.gov is because that is the only way to get the subsidies on a monthly basis sent directly to the insurer. If you wish to refuse the subsidies or don’t qualify for them, go directly to the insurers for quotes.

But CAN you front the money and then get it back when you do your taxes? I don’t know, I’ve heard opinions both ways. I suspect not, because the Democratics WANT the government to be the intermediary, even though they add no value to the transaction.

slickwillie2001 on April 7, 2014 at 6:28 PM

2008 Un-Insured 14.6%
2014 Un-Insured 15.6%

And they’re dancing in the streets.

Kapos on April 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Only in Obamaville is 15.6% SMALLER than 14.6%
Missilengr on April 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Maths is haaaaarrrrrd – expecially for obamatrons.

dentarthurdent on April 7, 2014 at 6:36 PM

But CAN you front the money and then get it back when you do your taxes?

slickwillie2001 on April 7, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Yes. If you choose to get the premium tax credit as a tax refund, the money will be included in your refund when you file your taxes.

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/reform/a/How-Does-The-Premium-Tax-Credit-Health-Insurance-Subsidy-Work.htm

lynncgb on April 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Its the same process that they use to determine the unemployment rate.

Once you’ve been without health insurance for two years, the gov’t assumes you’re not looking for it, and no longer counts you as being “uninsured”.

BobMbx on April 7, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Is that one of those “honor system” provisions?

lineholder on April 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM

The amount of the subsidy is based on the applicants own estimate of their income for the coming year. Then if they earn more than they estimated, supposedly they’ll have to pay back part or all of the excess subsidy money when they file their taxes. And if the actual annual income ended up more than 400% of Federal poverty level, supposedly the entire subsidy will have to be paid back. Supposedly.

lynncgb on April 7, 2014 at 7:53 PM

So basically the uninsured rates went up when Obama took office the first time around and this crap law just put us back to where we were before assumed the presidency.

MH53J on April 7, 2014 at 8:04 PM

How many of these ‘uninsured’ signed up for Medicaid, and were really always eligible for Medicaid? Also, there a growing trend amongst providers to drop out of, or severely limit, aka ration, the care they provide to those on Medicaid.

Coverage doesn’t equate to care, especially with Medicaid.

As an example, in Dentistry, Medicaid rates may be less than 10% to 35% of regular fees. For example, WA Medicaid pays $1.38 for a tooth xray (Procedure D0230).

$1.38 is not even enough to cover the time it takes for the front desk to make that appointment — it’s far less than minimum wages for everyone invovled in providing such care. It literally costs the clinic to provide care at such low reimbursment. The last time regular dental fees for an xray were $1.38 was probably before 1960… Never mind that the programmers creating the crummy flawed code for O-Care get full wages, as do the marketing firms for all the slick ads, as do the carriers processing Medicaid claims, as do the burrOcrats that monitor these programs.

Again, bloated Medicaid coverage with low provider reimbursements don’t equate to these folks getting access to regular quality care. Expect emergency room use to grow.

Don’t fall for any bogus politically biased polls about expanded coverage that doesn’t also deal with how are providers getting paid, or not paid. Teachers teaching rooms full of Medicaid kids get their regular pay, meanwhile health clinics full of Medicaid kids, get hardly paid at all.

This is progress? Ask the right questions and you’ll get the right answers. Don’t be distracted by BS.

drfredc on April 8, 2014 at 2:19 AM

In addition to folks imagining they are covered when they are not, as mentioned above (see ReaganWasRight on April 7, 2014 at 4:41 PM), they may also be saying they are insured because they are now concerned about the IRS sending them a letter reminding them that they need to sign up or else. No one likes to see an unexpected envelope with the IRS return address.

PatientObserver on April 8, 2014 at 7:59 AM

CBO still estimates 31 MILLION will be uninsured in a decade.
That’s called EPIC FAIL!

Pelosi Schmelosi on April 8, 2014 at 12:20 PM