Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 10, 2017

It's standard advice for consumers: If you are prescribed a medicine, always ask if there is a cheaper generic. Nathan Taylor, a 3-D animator who lives outside Houston, has tried to do that with all his medications. But when he fills his monthly prescription for Adderall XR to treat his attention-deficit disorder, his insurance company refuses to cover the generic. Instead, he must make a co-payment of $90 a month for the brand-name version. By comparison, he pays $10 or less each month for the five generic medications he also takes. "It just befuddles me that they would do that," said Taylor, 41 ... Out of public view, corporations are cutting deals that give consumers little choice but to buy brand-name drugs -- and sometimes pay more at the pharmacy counter than they would for generics.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The continued success of the brand-name drug Adderall XR, long after generic competitors arrived on the market, is a case in point.

Lawrence Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut Creek, Calif., said he began noticing "very odd things" going on with Adderall XR and other attention-deficit drugs about two years ago. He began receiving faxes from pharmacies telling him that he had to specify that patients required brand-name versions of the drugs.

He had been practicing for 40 years, but until then had never had a pharmacy tell him that he had to prescribe a brand-name drug instead of a generic.

"It's Alice-in-Wonderland time in the drug world," he said.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

He can always pay out of pocket.

www.goodrx.com

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2017-08-07 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Very interesting - AND it makes sense. Something I have been talking about for sometime as opportunities come up. Insurance companies actually have no interest in controlling healthcare costs - quite the opposite.

Here's why: In the ACA there is a "well intended" clause that creates a requirement of insurance companies to use 90% or more of their income on patient care. So they are limited to 10% of their revenue for things like offices, office workers and profit. In theory this is a great idea until someone recognizes they can make that 10% a helluva lot bigger by raising prices patients pay thereby raising premiums thereby making that 10% chunk of pie bigger.

It would probably cost Nathan less to outright buy the generic.

#2 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-08-07 02:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We need a law stating that drug companies can't charge more in the US than they charge in any other country for the same drug. From what I've seen in the news, that would reduce America's drug bill by almost 75%.

Of course, it will never happen....

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-07 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

When is drug purchase deregulation coming?
Forget repeal and replace, let Amazon etal sell non opioid prescription drugs.
Easy to do except big pharma has bought congress. Why won't Trump drain the swamp?

#4 | Posted by bored at 2017-08-07 06:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

For a time, I was paying for my wife's scripts out of pocket so it was generic whenever possible. Once, the doc screwed up and prescribed Valium instead of the generic diazapam. I figured no big deal since Valium came out about 55 years ago. Wrong. Diazapam is about 85 cents each. Valium is $10 each.

For a drug over half a century old.

I prolly coulda got it in Mexico for 85 cents. And yes, it still woulda been authentic from the original maker.

#5 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2017-08-07 06:20 PM | Reply

Your politicians are screwing you.

#6 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-08-07 09:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#2- that's a good theory until you understand it wrong.

Blue Shield reimburses policies if they make more than 2% profit on the pool.

You need to look at the providers.

#7 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-07 10:51 PM | Reply

This to me are pharmacies trying to increase profit as they were the one's to request a Brand Name from the doctor when a generic was available.

Generics, when available are always dispensed first.

ACA requires 2 drug options in every therapeutic class so there is always a 2nd option under law.

These people were defrauded.

#8 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-07 11:14 PM | Reply

We need a law stating that drug companies can't charge more in the US than they charge in any other country for the same drug. From what I've seen in the news, that would reduce America's drug bill by almost 75%.
Of course, it will never happen....
#3 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Not with the Republicans in charge.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-10 09:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

ACA requires 2 drug options in every therapeutic class so there is always a 2nd option under law.
These people were defrauded.

#8 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

The irony of you promoting Obamacare on here is incredible.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-10 09:56 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"The irony of you promoting Obamacare on here is incredible."

Typical liberal! Learn to read, he's promoting ACA, not obamacare!

Idiot.

(End sarcasm)

#11 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-08-10 09:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 5

We let the pharmaceutical industry get away with murder (literally) because they are big contributors to campaigns on both sides. The whole system is corrupted because of big money politics. We either fix that or they will continue to rip us off, not just on drugs but on many other things such as credit cards, banking fees, the list goes on very long. BTW, Obama was certainly right in his first State of the Union address when he predicted the affects of CU much to the dismay of the sold out pieces of garbage who decided that case. But then, that wasn't hardly their first corrupt decision, Bush v Gore was another.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 10:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Not with the Republicans in charge.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-10 09:55 AM

"because they are big contributors to campaigns on both sides."

#12 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

I rarely agree with danni and don't like her much of the time, but I do respect her more times than not.

Furthermore, Cory Booker has some key constituents who will lose out if Canada is allowed to export cheaper prescription drugs. Namely, a large list of biotech companies that operate in New Jersey. Some of which, like Merck and Celgene, also appear on his list of donors.

Michael Bennett (D-CO) -- $222,000
Cory Booker (D-NJ) -- $267,338
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) -- $25,600
Tom Carper (D-DE) -- $210,000
Bob Casey (D-PA) -- $250,730
Chris ----- (D-DE) -- $217,150
Joe Donnelly (D-IN) -- $111,312
Martin Heinrich (D-NM) -- $61,302
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) -- $32,750
Bob Menedez (D-NJ) -- $191,400
Patty Murray (D-WA) -- $254,649
Jon Tester (D-MT) -- $77,250
Mark Warner (D-VA) -- $89,800

#13 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 10:26 AM | Reply

let me save you the time..

but ...but....DEFLECTION.....translated as...."the REST of the story"....

#14 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 10:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

let me save you the time..

but ...but....DEFLECTION.....translated as...."the REST of the story"....

Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 10:27 AM | Reply

You're the deflection master Babbles.

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-10 10:30 AM | Reply

.."the REST of the story"....

#16 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 10:38 AM | Reply

"Furthermore, Cory Booker has some key constituents who will lose out if Canada is allowed to export cheaper prescription drugs. Namely, a large list of biotech companies that operate in New Jersey. Some of which, like Merck and Celgene, also appear on his list of donors."

If Corey Booker has any dreams of national office he needs to end his dependence on pharmaceutical companies for campaign support. I wouldn't vote for him myself and I am a strong Democrat. He is exactly the kind of candidate that is killing the Democratic Party, you can't be on both sides of the issues and be elected President today. America is beginning to recognize that sold out corporate Dems are no better than Republicans. Either stand for something or move over and let someone who does have the spotlight.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 10:47 AM | Reply

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 10:47 AM |

I'd say I'm in agreement but the 'daily kos wannabes' would be attacking you so I"ll just leave this here.

well said....

#18 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 10:56 AM | Reply

you-----us both.

#19 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 10:59 AM | Reply

We need a law stating that drug companies can't charge more in the US than they charge in any other country for the same drug. From what I've seen in the news, that would reduce America's drug bill by almost 75%.

Of course, it will never happen....

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat

It could if people like you voted for people like bernie instead of people like trump.

Bernie suggested the same thing. You idiots voted for hillary and donald.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 11:10 AM | Reply

Furthermore, Cory Booker has some key constituents who will lose out if Canada is allowed to export cheaper prescription drugs.

#13 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

This is about generics, not importation from Canada. Deflection is cute though.

#21 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-10 11:15 AM | Reply

We need a law stating that drug companies can't charge more in the US than they charge in any other country for the same drug. From what I've seen in the news, that would reduce America's drug bill by almost 75%.
Of course, it will never happen....
#3 | Posted by HeliumRat
It could if people like you voted for people like bernie instead of people like trump.
Bernie suggested the same thing. You idiots voted for hillary and donald.
#20 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

At the election, voting for Bernie was a waste. In the primaries, not so much.

But Helium loves him some Trump. And Trump loves him some pharma companies and not so much regulations.

#22 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-10 11:17 AM | Reply

Furthermore, Cory Booker has some key constituents who will lose out if Canada is allowed to export cheaper prescription drugs.

#13 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

This is about generics, not importation from Canada. Deflection is cute though.

#21 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-10 11:15 AM | Repl

nonsense....it's about cheaper drugs....something that BOOKER VOTED AGAINST......and I wasn't the fist one to bring

up Canada and in fact it was brought up in a post BY YOU....

We need a law stating that drug companies can't charge more in the US than they charge in any other country for the same drug. From what I've seen in the news, that would reduce America's drug bill by almost 75%.
Of course, it will never happen....
#3 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Not with the Republicans in charge.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-10 0

unless you're now going to tell us that Canada is now in the US.

#23 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 11:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I keep saying it, the biggest obstacle to Medicare for All is Big Pharma and the politicians that it owns, once Medicare is nationwide the restriction against negotiating prices for pharmaceuticals will vanish (as it should be part of the law establishing single payer) and Big Pharma will lose its gigantic profit margins.

Babbles partial list in 13 (while probably 20 times as large when you include the House and GOP members who get money from Big Pharma) is one of the biggest obstacles to Single Payer.

The head of the snake needs to be cut off.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-10 11:42 AM | Reply

#10- I'm not promoting it just stating a fact. I do this for a living. Too much wrong information in threads like this so I am adding clarity.

#25 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Babbles partial list in 13 (while probably 20 times as large when you include the House and GOP members who get money from Big Pharma) is one of the biggest obstacles to Single Payer.

The head of the snake needs to be cut off.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-10

yes and my list of only dems, as my comment to danni clearly shows, was not meant to exclude anyone.....UNLIKE posters

who claim my list was "deflection".

#26 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-08-10 11:58 AM | Reply

Until there are price controls on goods and service in healthcare, the system will continue to become more expensive for people, no matter if it is single or multi payer.

Perhaps the ins industry would be willing to trade it's existence for such controls.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-10 12:25 PM | Reply

Congress served us up to the corp state. No protection what so ever.

#28 | Posted by fresno500 at 2017-08-10 01:19 PM | Reply

I keep saying it, the biggest obstacle to Medicare for All is Big Pharma and the politicians that it owns, once Medicare is nationwide the restriction against negotiating prices for pharmaceuticals will vanish (as it should be part of the law establishing single payer) and Big Pharma will lose its gigantic profit margins.

Babbles partial list in 13 (while probably 20 times as large when you include the House and GOP members who get money from Big Pharma) is one of the biggest obstacles to Single Payer.

The head of the snake needs to be cut off.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter

Again, there was a candidate in 2016 who agreed with you.
Campaign finance is at the heart of nearly every problem in america today. We can't fix things because people are getting rich off the status quo, and they use their riches to bribe and control the government through campaign donations.

Fix campaign funding, LIKE BERNIE SAID, and pharma prices, healthcare, EVERYTHING will become fixable.

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 01:24 PM | Reply

Until there are price controls on goods and service in healthcare, the system will continue to become more expensive for people, no matter if it is single or multi payer.

Perhaps the ins industry would be willing to trade it's existence for such controls.

#27 | Posted by Corky

And until "liberals" stop voting for candidates who take bribes from the health care industry, there won't be any price controls.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7, prolix's argument is nonsense. Gpete's point applies just as well to Blue Shield's bank account as any other health insurance company. The fact that they are "non-profit" (? really 2% ?) does not change the fact that the larger the bill from drug companies and health care providers means a larger cash flow for the insurance middlemen.

Somehow the SS and Medicare system operates with a 2-3% administrative cost. But, the private sector sucks up to 30% out of every health care dollar. Some of that money is spent using real death panels that deny care.

The other important point is that basic health care charges are outrageous from the get go. Insurance companies negotiate half price deals and better compared to the list price you're stuck with if you have no insurance. Drugs are far worse. $600 worth of insulin in the USA costs $3 in Africa, a fact I learned from a National Geographic photographer.

#31 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-08-10 01:32 PM | Reply

#30

Purity Pony needs a new trick.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-10 02:05 PM | Reply

Purity Pony needs a new trick.

#32 | Posted by Corky

I'm not going to stop trying to potty train you until you stop crapping your pants.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 02:10 PM | Reply

#33

You keep losing the argument about the election you helped Trump win on relevant threads, like yesterday, so why you bring it up again on not so directly relevant threads is rather mysterious.

But until the Purity Ponies stop ignoring what people like Bernie and Warren and Chomsky tell them about real politics, I guess they'll keep stinking the place up with their holier than thou shtick.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-10 02:15 PM | Reply

You keep losing the argument about the election you helped Trump win on relevant threads, like yesterday, so why you bring it up again on not so directly relevant threads is rather mysterious.

But until the Purity Ponies stop ignoring what people like Bernie and Warren and Chomsky tell them about real politics, I guess they'll keep stinking the place up with their holier than thou shtick.

#34 | Posted by Corky

It's not mysterious because its all tied together. YOu can't whine about how we need price controls when you shunned the candidate who wanted price controls in favor of the one who can't pursue them because she takes bribes from people who would lose money from price controls.

I didn't help trump win. I voted for the candidate who would have beaten him. You supported the one person america hated more. You lost the ultimate argument in 2016. You picked a puppet who lost to the ----- grabber but you're still trying to blame everyone but yourself.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 02:25 PM | Reply

- I didn't help trump win.

Of course you did.

"However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration." - Noam Chomsky

And you are, as he notes, responsible for the pain Trump is causing.

Time for you to grow up and listen to your supposed political heroes rather than ignore them and whine about a vote they got over a long time ago.

Of course, HDS is a debilitating disease, often chronic and deadly.

Perhaps you'd like to educate us on which pres candidate ever became Pres the same year that they lost their own party primary in a landslide??

But you will continue to ignore the historical facts. People had every chance to choose Bernie, but decided not to.

What seems to be flying over your head at supersonic speeds, Speaks, other than the historical question you can't answer, is that Trump voters didn't want that multi-cultural demographic coddling liberal (in their view, if not yours) Clinton's policies, even if those policies also benefited them.... meaning they certainly would not have been interested in Bernie's even moreso policies.

"It Was Cultural Anxiety That Drove White, Working-Class Voters to Trump

A new study finds that fear of societal change, not economic pressure, motivated votes for the president among non-salaried workers without college degrees.
MAY 9, 2017"

www.theatlantic.com

So do try to get over yourself.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-10 02:45 PM | Reply

What seems to be flying over your head at supersonic speeds, Speaks, other than the historical question you can't answer, is that Trump voters didn't want that multi-cultural demographic coddling liberal (in their view, if not yours) Clinton's policies, even if those policies also benefited them.... meaning they certainly would not have been interested in Bernie's even moreso policies.

#36 | Posted by Corky

Trump voters are too dumb to care about policies. Just like you're too dumb to see why clinton lost. She lost because she was too busy giving secret speeches to bankers while telling the people she was on their side.

You helped trump win by picking a sellout to run against him. You supported the only person who he could possibly beat. Good job.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 02:49 PM | Reply

- She lost because she was too busy giving secret speeches to bankers while telling the people she was on their side.

YOU didn't like that, Trumpublicansvoters wouldn't care.

Until you can see past your own perspective, you'll keep making the same mistake Bernie et al warned you against.

Nice answer to the question I asked you, though. Congrats on that.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-10 02:53 PM | Reply

"Perhaps you'd like to educate us on which pres candidate ever became Pres the same year that they lost their own party primary in a landslide??"

#36; CORKY

You have to stop using that line. She didn't win in a landslide and the DNC has admitted to colluding against Bernie. I didn't even get to vote before the DNC and the television networks had already claimed HRC to be the nominee, despite not having the delegates at the time. Bernie was only behind by about 100 delegates. It was a scam. How many of my fellow Californians didn't bother to vote at all because of that? You may as well say that there is no way Russia interfered in the election to help trump because he still won the electorate. A useless point.

Of course she won, the DNC handed it to her without allowing for a fair primary election.

#39 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-She didn't win in a landslide

4 million votes in that race was a landslide, and nothing the DNC might have done caused that loss.

- a fair primary election

Would not have included all those undemocrated Caucuses where he got so many of his state wins.

But re-litigating the primary on a daily basis is just sour grapes, as is the notion that a pres candidate ever became Pres the same year that they lost their own party primary in a landslide, which hasn't happened and wouldn't have happened this time as Bernie's policies were more coddling of the multi-cultural demographic that her's were... and as that study I linked and several others show is why Trump eked out a statistical fluke of a win in the EC.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-10 03:04 PM | Reply

#40;

So Bernie's caucuses were undemocratic wins but the 6 coin tosses Clinton "won" count?

I swear the Clinton die-hards are as bad as the trump ones when it comes to willful ignorance.

We aren't re-litigating it to be sour, we are trying to get nonliberal democrats to understand why they lost they election.

#41 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- nonliberal democrats

I guess there is still no shortage of more liberal than thou lefties.

Of course, I voted for the last Dem who lost as badly as Bernie would have in the general, George McGovern the first time I could vote. But you are much better a lib than I.

Bernie was a stretch for what the left could have gotten, which is why Dems decided to go with Clinton who came within a statistical fluke of winning.

Although it now seems some would have liked the DNC to have picked the primary loser as their candidate in a backroom somewhere.

-
caucuses were undemocratic wins

Here's the Truth: The Caucus System Remains an Undemocratic Relic From a Bygone Era

from those not lefty enough folks at

www.dailykos.com

Coin-Toss Fact-Check: No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa For Hillary Clinton

www.npr.org

- willful ignorance.

Seems like you are the one who has fallen into that trap. You seem to be as myth-informed on theses subjects as any rwinger.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-10 03:26 PM | Reply

YOU didn't like that, Trumpublicansvoters wouldn't care.

Until you can see past your own perspective, you'll keep making the same mistake Bernie et al warned you against.

Nice answer to the question I asked you, though. Congrats on that.

#38 | Posted by Corky

Again, as always, you completely ignore there were millions who voted for trump only because they hated hillary more.

You have to ignore that, because the only other option is admitting you were wrong.

But you were clearly undeniably wrong. Tragically wrong.

We did it your way and we lost. So when it comes to the future, let's listen to the people who weren't wrong.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 03:50 PM | Reply

- Tragically wrong.

Bernie, Liz Warren, Chomsky, and M Moore were right, you were, "tragically wrong".

- millions who voted for trump only because they hated hillary more.

No, you hate Hillary more. They voted for T-rump because they were a'scar't of Hillary coddling the multi-cultural demographic more than them.

"It Was Cultural Anxiety That Drove White, Working-Class Voters to Trump" per the study in 36.

Just imagine what they thought of Bernie.... if you can see past your own perspective.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-10 06:41 PM | Reply

Bernie, Liz Warren, Chomsky, and M Moore were right, you were, "tragically wrong".

#44 | Posted by Corky

I told you dum dum. I always vote for the lesser evil.

But your plan is convince millions of americans to do that instead of just offering them 1 candidate who isn't a corporate puppet.

That's why you're an idiot. Your plan, your strategy, your candidate got rejected with horrific consequences.

Until you own that, all you're doing is making yourself look like a stubborn fool.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 06:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It Was Cultural Anxiety That Drove White, Working-Class Voters to Trump" per the study in 36.

"Cultural Anxiety" to a tee.
I don't want to name any names, but some of their names combined into one are Nullix247HeliumSgt.

Just in case you want to know if you're One Of Them:
If you are deeply concerned about transgenders in the bathroom, you have Cultural Anxiety.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 07:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

- a corporate puppet.

Which in your extremist view includes almost everyone in gov. There's a reason why crying "wolf!" all the time only annoys people, not convinces them.

- got rejected with horrific consequences.

A statistical fluke is nothing to panic over... but I see it's too late for that.

Interesting there was no retort for the rest of my post, eh?

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-11 12:18 PM | Reply

- Cultural Anxiety..... Nullix247HeliumSgt.

Or, the Nervous Nullis.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-11 12:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

A statistical fluke is nothing to panic over... but I see it's too late for that.

Interesting there was no retort for the rest of my post, eh?

#47 | Posted by Corky

If you think trump is nothing to panic over you're a moron.

IQ test time:
Your corporate puppet couldnt beat the ----- grabber.

Are you going to nominate another one?

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-11 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A fluke is a fluke, nothing to panic over. Especially when the alternative candidate presented even a bigger target for "Cultural Anxiety", which is what motivated Trump's voters, than did Clinton, so would have fared much worse.

But since you never address the main points given, obviously because you can't, talking to you is really, really boring.

I voted for the same candidate in the primary that most Dems did because she had a better chance of winning, and almost did.

You sulled up, took your ball and went home, just the opposite of what Bernie asked you to do. Something else you never address.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-11 02:28 PM | Reply

A fluke is a fluke

Overconfidence is a flimsy shield.

#51 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-11 03:20 PM | Reply

You sulled up, took your ball and went home, just the opposite of what Bernie asked you to do. Something else you never address.

#50 | Posted by Corky

Oh i address it every time. I tell you I always vote for the lesser evil. Just like bernie said. YOu're the only who only does it if the lesser evil is billionaire-approved.

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-11 04:35 PM | Reply

- I always vote for the lesser evil.

So, you must be a Clinton voter then.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-11 09:53 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort