Another Federal Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Yea, and what's that about Medicare, Medicade and Social Security?

Well I'm interested in your theory. Precisely when was Medicaid mandated because of the general welfare clause? When was I charged a tax to support Medicaid only if I don't use it? Did you read that Congress can't just say "general welfare" and do what they want?

Probably not.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Well I'm interested in your theory. Precisely when was Medicaid mandated because of the general welfare clause? When was I charged a tax to support Medicaid only if I don't use it? Did you read that Congress can't just say "general welfare" and do what they want?

Probably not.
A Democratic controlled Congress can.
Not a Republican controlled congress.

One pretends to be for the people knowing that the people will not wise up. which one is that?
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
When did I say all people?
About 1/4 of the waivers are for union groups. Unions = Obamas friends.
Read better.

Follow your own advice. You said all of Obama's friends. Most of the people covered by the waivers work for health insurance companies. Unions are a tiny fraction. You pulled it out of your butt.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Follow your own advice. You said all of Obama's friends. Most of the people covered by the waivers work for health insurance companies. Unions are a tiny fraction. You pulled it out of your butt.


When did less than 1&#37; become all? 2 million people, much less than 1% of all Americans. Most of them are health insurance companies. What makes them Obama's friends? Did you just pull that out of your butt? Try harder.

2 million ~ 1% of americans, you asked when did 1% of americans "become all"
You are implying I equated 1 percent of something to 100% but I did no such thing.
I never said 1% = all so you are pulling that "out of your butt"


Because I obviously meant 100% of the people in the US who like Obama got waivers
I know not "all of Obama's friends" received waivers, this does not mean literally "all of his friends", obviously. Its a figure of speech.
And this list has grown from 100 to 200 to 700 in a matter of months, expect it to grow even more.
 
Last edited:

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
2 million ~ 1% of americans, you asked when did 1% of americans "become all"
You are implying I equated 1 percent of something to 100% but I did no such thing.
I never said 1% = all so you are pulling that "out of your butt"


Because I obviously meant 100% of the people in the US who like Obama got waivers
I know not "all of Obama's friends" received waivers, this does not mean literally "all of his friends", obviously. Its a figure of speech.
And this list has grown from 100 to 200 to 700 in a matter of months, expect it to grow even more.

You should learn to be accurate then instead of spouting ridiculous claims. Regardless, who cares? A tiny minority have waivers. Most of them are for health insurance companies, not unions. Your comment backfired.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
You should learn to be accurate then instead of spouting ridiculous claims. Regardless, who cares? A tiny minority have waivers. Most of them are for health insurance companies, not unions. Your comment backfired.

Yeah really, who cares if our laws apply to some people and not others right? :\
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Yeah really, who cares if our laws apply to some people and not others right? :\

The law restricts who is allowed to apply for waivers? Is it only friends of Obama ...... like health insurance companies?

You lost. Get over it.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
The law restricts who is allowed to apply for waivers? Is it only friends of Obama ...... like health insurance companies?

You lost. Get over it.

Whats the point of a law that people just waive out of?

Lost what? I didn't lose anything. Get over yourself.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
My tax dollars are used to to pay for those that are unlucky enough to get into an unfortunate circumstance and not be able to deal with it themselves.

How is this fair?

The police exist to uphold the constitution, in very simple terms. They exist to make sure others do not remove your rights, and that you do not remove somebody else's rights. Everyone is, in theory, equal under the law.

The year was 2005, I don't recall the board members name and I think the company was possibly Blue Cross?
Blue Cross board members are compensated on average, between $20,000 and $50,000 per year (varies by state, mostly toward the lower end of the scale). A board member would not make a multi-million dollar payday by "raising premiums". It would be extremely extraordinary for board members to have any involvement in raising/lowering premiums, or otherwise affecting the day-to-day operations of the company. Along with that, BCBSA is comprised of multiple independent operations in many, many states, with only a handful being organized under a parent company and publicly traded. Also, the historical average profit margin for health insurance companies is around 3&#37;, +/- .5%.

If you give me the state, and exactly which insurance company you used, I'm sure I could find exactly who was on the BoD for those years, and how much they were compensated (if it is a publicly traded arm).

Completely out of pocket, I'd imagine my surgery would have been around 150k to 200k, but that was just the operation itself, not the rehab, medication, check-ups, etc
Ok, and how did you pay in insurance fees to cover the same treatment? I would imagine substantially less. Who paid for the rest? How is that fair?

I'd also, think that, there's a rather enormous difference between making enough to drive a decent car, have a glass of wine on the table than buying a several million dollar yacht.
So now it's not an issue of fairness, it's an issue of envy. There's also an enormous difference between making enough to have an apartment with a glass of water on the table, than having a house and a nice glass of wine. Isn't that unfair?

Yes, it does make it so. CEO's, in the United States and Doctor are grossly overpaid in the United States but are US Companies and Doctors that much better than those next door or overseas? No, they're not.
Uh, yes, they are. The doctors are better, the facilities are better, the equipment is better. You've obviously missed something.

Profiting off of someone's bad luck they can't control is grossly unethical, the rest of the civilized world agrees, and fortunately the US is starting to follow suit.
So you just don't believe in any form of insurance, right? The government should provide car insurance, life insurance, homeowners insurance, valuable personal property insurance, travel insurance, etc., all at zero profit, right?

If I have a $20,000 rolex, you want the government to provide personal property insurance to pay for it if it gets stolen, right? Why should anybody else profit off of my bad luck?

Also, as you want to talk about the rest of the world... why do you think health care is cheaper in other countries? Wouldn't you know it, it's because the US subsidizes a good chunk of the rest of the world's medical costs through research and development, cutting-edge technologies, superior medical schools, drug development, etc. Just like no other country spends a fraction of what we do on defense, because most of them benefit from our explicit or implied protection.

If you want to blame somebody for increasing costs, look to the other (failing) socialized medicine countries who for years have demanded to benefit from the US's advancements in health care, while assuming little to none of the burden.

If you're going to answer my question, we can continue this conversation. Otherwise, I'll assume you don't have an answer.
 
Last edited:

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Who the Democrats or Republicans vote for in an election is irrelevant. We independents will make the ultimate decision, and I think you'll find that we aren't amused with either of you. Since the Dems insisted on ramming this down our throats, booby trapping the legislation won't be unnoticed. As a result you'll be punished in the elections. That's what happened this past November, and if you think it can't happen again, well you are mistaken.

QFT.

I think Obamacare would've been constitutional if they levied a tax instead of a penalty. This judge basically says Obama et al.'s interpretation of the constitution would allow Congress to do whatever it pleases under the Commerce clause. I think that's a very legitimate concern.

I would like to see a larger majority to strike down Obamacare than a typical 5-4 in the SCOTUS, but that probably won't happen.
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
4
0
how is obama supposed to win? obama didnt want to force people to buy health insurance. he wanted the public option! but the people said NO WAY to that commy bullshit!. so he had to go the only other way to do this and everyone still freaks out.


and these are the same states that FORCE people to buy car insurance. CAR insurance! and theyre pissed that people have to chip in for the common health of everyone? this isnt about peoples rights, its about a republican regime who just goes against everything in front of them until they are in office, then once in they filter as much cash through their pockets as they can. they are in reality, completely opposite of what a real repblican is about.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
how is obama supposed to win? obama didnt want to force people to buy health insurance. he wanted the public option! but the people said NO WAY to that commy bullshit!. so he had to go the only other way to do this and everyone still freaks out.


and these are the same states that FORCE people to buy car insurance. CAR insurance! and theyre pissed that people have to chip in for the common health of everyone? this isnt about peoples rights, its about a republican regime who just goes against everything in front of them until they are in office, then once in they filter as much cash through their pockets as they can. they are in reality, completely opposite of what a real repblican is about.

Huge difference, car insurance, child support, etc are a choice and activity.
You choose to have a car. You choose to have children. You choose to get a mortgage so of course state can force you to pay, it's a contractual obligation and known.


The judge ruled the commerce clause does not apply to inactivity.


If this Obamacare was taken to it's logical conclusion the federal government could conceivably have the power to force us to purchase anything. Ford: Sales are down for my plant, I'll donate to campaign if you force everyone to buy Ford. etc.

What if I don't want a car? What if I don't want heath insurance?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
how is obama supposed to win? obama didnt want to force people to buy health insurance. he wanted the public option! but the people said NO WAY to that commy bullshit!. so he had to go the only other way to do this and everyone still freaks out.

The people said no to raising taxes by a huge level (arguably somewhat offset eventually) to provide health care to everyone so he instead signs a law forcing those same people to give a huge amount of money to private companies??? And you are wondering why the same people aren't happy?

and these are the same states that FORCE people to buy car insurance. CAR insurance! and theyre pissed that people have to chip in for the common health of everyone? this isnt about peoples rights, its about a republican regime who just goes against everything in front of them until they are in office, then once in they filter as much cash through their pockets as they can. they are in reality, completely opposite of what a real repblican is about.

The auto insurance thing has been addressed like a billion times. As far as the rest, with the way the Dems have been blowing the banksters and the way Obama (like the R before him) blew the pharmaceutical companies I find it rather difficult to not include both political parties in your statement.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
The police exist to uphold the constitution, in very simple terms. They exist to make sure others do not remove your rights, and that you do not remove somebody else's rights. Everyone is, in theory, equal under the law.

And I can't do those things myself? Why can't we just contract a company to do those and those that have to use the service pay for it.

Blue Cross board members are compensated on average, between $20,000 and $50,000 per year (varies by state, mostly toward the lower end of the scale). A board member would not make a multi-million dollar payday by "raising premiums". It would be extremely extraordinary for board members to have any involvement in raising/lowering premiums, or otherwise affecting the day-to-day operations of the company. Along with that, BCBSA is comprised of multiple independent operations in many, many states, with only a handful being organized under a parent company and publicly traded. Also, the historical average profit margin for health insurance companies is around 3&#37;, +/- .5%.

If you give me the state, and exactly which insurance company you used, I'm sure I could find exactly who was on the BoD for those years, and how much they were compensated (if it is a publicly traded arm).

Ok, and how did you pay in insurance fees to cover the same treatment? I would imagine substantially less. Who paid for the rest? How is that fair?

10k+, which is a lot for your typical middle class family.

Everyone pays some, etc.

So now it's not an issue of fairness, it's an issue of envy. There's also an enormous difference between making enough to have an apartment with a glass of water on the table, than having a house and a nice glass of wine. Isn't that unfair?

Yes, but there isn't a difference of life vs. death or having 6-month savings in the bank vs. bankruptcy due to medical costs.

Uh, yes, they are. The doctors are better, the facilities are better, the equipment is better. You've obviously missed something.

No, they're not. Is there a different version of cancer floating around in Canada, UK, or Taiwan? No, there isn't.

What about American Companies, are we that much better than everyone else?

http://www.cab.latech.edu/~mkroll/510_papers/fall_05/group6.pdf
Country Ratio of CEO pay to
average worker pay
Japan 11:1
Germany 12:1
France 15:1
Italy 20:1
Canada 20:1
South Africa 21:1
Britain 22:1
Hong Kong 41:1
Mexico 47:1
Venezuela 50:1
United States 475:1

So you just don't believe in any form of insurance, right? The government should provide car insurance, life insurance, homeowners insurance, valuable personal property insurance, travel insurance, etc., all at zero profit, right?

The difference is, aside from the fact is you don't need a car, life insurance, etc to be able to live.

More disturbing is that trend is that most middle-class family can't afford health insurance, hence why we had this healthcare act implemented in the first place. The United States is the only Country in the world were it's citizens go bankrupt due to medical costs.

Also, as you want to talk about the rest of the world... why do you think health care is cheaper in other countries? Wouldn't you know it, it's because the US subsidizes a good chunk of the rest of the world's medical costs through research and development, cutting-edge technologies, superior medical schools, drug development, etc

Uh, and these Countries got our medical equipment, services for, free?

HA HA HA HA HA

Just like no other country spends a fraction of what we do on defense, because most of them benefit from our explicit or implied protection.

Yea, and they need our military protection from whom exactly?

If you want to blame somebody for increasing costs, look to the other (failing) socialized medicine countries who for years have demanded to benefit from the US's advancements in health care, while assuming little to none of the burden.

Not true.

If you're going to answer my question, we can continue this conversation. Otherwise, I'll assume you don't have an answer.

I gave you answer, if you don't like it. Too bad.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,177
10,851
136
Wow, Fox news supposedly has the highest cable new ratings. Numbers of judges ruling healthcare law unconstitutional does not equal the right interpretation of constitution.

Lot's of incompetent people in positions of power these days. Point?
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
Wow, Fox news supposedly has the highest cable new ratings. Numbers of judges ruling healthcare law unconstitutional does not equal the right interpretation of constitution.

Nor does judges ruling it constitutional equal the 'correct' interpretation of the constitution, though you couldn't tell that from the reaction some on the left have had. IMO, Vinson is correct but it means nothing until it hits the USSC.

To me, it is sad that people with an agenda (in this particular case, the left, but the right is equally guilty of it too and perhaps even moreso) will go through any lengths to get something -- anything -- passed even though it clearly will set a dangerous constitutional precedent. You guys can scream "strawmen!!1!1!!!" all you want, but many of the other analogies that have been made (fed requiring citizens to buy guns, etc) are correct analogies.

If something like the current abomination is to be passed into law, it needs to be via the amendment process or left to the states.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Nor does judges ruling it constitutional equal the left interpretation of the constitution. IMO, Vinson is correct but it means nothing until it hits the USSC.

This is true. The argument which will be made will be regarding the Commerce Clause. No idiot would bring up "general welfare" because he'd be laughed out of court. Note that's not how this has ever been sold in a legal sense.

If this is upheld then the government has a new power, and that's to tax people because they opt out of something. If upheld then the government can make people do anything or punish them for not obeying.

At that point we have elevated the already powerful government to all powerful.

There are problems with the current system, but despite private corporations having considerable power, they don't have the power to deprive you of life or throw you in jail.

Once power is given for whatever cause it can never be recalled short of revolution, which isn't going to happen.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
This is true. The argument which will be made will be regarding the Commerce Clause. No idiot would bring up "general welfare" because he'd be laughed out of court. Note that's not how this has ever been sold in a legal sense.

If this is upheld then the government has a new power, and that's to tax people because they opt out of something. If upheld then the government can make people do anything or punish them for not obeying.

At that point we have elevated the already powerful government to all powerful.

There are problems with the current system, but despite private corporations having considerable power, they don't have the power to deprive you of life or throw you in jail.

Once power is given for whatever cause it can never be recalled short of revolution, which isn't going to happen.

I edited my post above because in my haste this morning, I misread his original post. I'm used to so much partisan rancor that I incorrectly assumed that his post contained some.

Throwing out the "is this plan going to work and lower costs" question for a moment, I am deeply concerned if this survives the USSC. As you've mentioned, it sets a dangerous precedent and I guarantee that Madison, Jefferson, etc. would never have supported the broad interpretation of the Constitution that this would represent. And I don't want to give the impression that I am picking on the left, because the right is just as guilty if not more so (see: Patriot Act).

As I've mentioned before, IMO, this is best left to either the amendment process or the states. And before anyone jumps in and screams "But....but...the states don't have the economies of scale of the federal government!!!!", I know that, but I also understand what the intent of the Constitution is and that's why the first option I listed above is to use the amendment process. And don't kid yourselves -- the amendment process will never be used for something like this because a) the left knows the states would never ratify it and b) amendment ratification can take years.
 
Last edited:

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
And I can't do those things myself? Why can't we just contract a company to do those and those that have to use the service pay for it.

Because the government has the power of the law, and the duty and authority to uphold it. We do contract private security and police, and people/companies pay for their service. Same with ambulances. Difference being the authority they are granted.

10k+, which is a lot for your typical middle class family.

Everyone pays some, etc.

So you paid $10k, vs the true cost of over $100k, the insurance picking up the tab for the rest. You still complaining about it being unfair?

$10k is a lot, but definitely within the realm of realistic for a typical middle class family. $100k is not. Why is it not unfair that the Insurance company had to pay $90k for your surgery?

Yes, but there isn't a difference of life vs. death or having 6-month savings in the bank vs. bankruptcy due to medical costs.

So how much should it have cost you? Please tell me how much you should have paid, how much the doctors should have received, how much the insurance company, hospital, staff, etc., all deserved to make in profit. Tell me how much the equipment manufacturers deserved to make on their supplies.

You've obviously fallen into the same false-premise trap that so many do. You feel that medical services should be assigned a fixed price, no matter the true cost. You feel that as incident rates go up for a certain procedure, prices should obviously go down, to maintain a zero-sum cost for that service. You think that if we as a nation spend $X billion a year on health care costs, that if next year twice as many people are sick, we should be able to continue spending $X billion to treat them.

Let me ask you this. I don't know what caused your back problem, but say for now that it was due to a sports injury. You paid $10k to receive treatment. A couple years later, you injure it again, and need another $10k treatment. A couple years later, you do the same. You keep doing this until you are bankrupt. Would your original argument still hold water? Do you think that the costs should go down every time you need treatment, because that's what is "fair"?

If I shoot myself in the foot and need to go to the hospital, where does that money come from? If I shoot myself in the foot once a week, who is paying for that? You think that the insurance company should continue paying for it, and continue losing money by doing so. If they increase premiums for others to cover this cost, it's just because they want more yachts. Right?

No, they're not. Is there a different version of cancer floating around in Canada, UK, or Taiwan? No, there isn't.

Now you are just being ignorant of reality. The entire world recognizes the US as the definitive leader in medical treatment, technology, and research. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.

What about American Companies, are we that much better than everyone else?

You link to some college class project and expect that to help your argument? I read through 3 pages of that and would wager they got at least a D-, because their own figures don't agree with each other from line to line. They compare data from over 20 years ago to data from 2005, and make comparisons in the same sentence that are off by factors of 50.

Try again. CEOs in the US may be overpaid, but when you realize that the majority of their compensation is in stock options, you may want to think about where that money comes from. Also, you were talking about the board of directors in your little made-up story about yachts. Do you know what the difference is?

The difference is, aside from the fact is you don't need a car, life insurance, etc to be able to live.

I don't need medical insurance to live. I am uninsured right now. I'm alive. How is that possible?

More disturbing is that trend is that most middle-class family can't afford health insurance, hence why we had this healthcare act implemented in the first place. The United States is the only Country in the world were it's citizens go bankrupt due to medical costs.

Most can and do afford it. How many people in this country are uninsured? How many of those are uninsured by their own choice? answer those questions for me before you keep going.

Uh, and these Countries got our medical equipment, services for, free?

HA HA HA HA HA

Most of them have older, less sophisticated equipment. Most of them force drug companies to sell their products at reduced rates, which means they need to make up the profit somewhere else (US). Tell me what happens when the US forces down drug rates? Where will the money come from then?

Do you realize what happens to most drug company profits? Do you think every dollar over cost at the end of the year goes to the CEO? Drug companies plow as much money as they can into R&D, because if they don't keep innovating, they will eventually die. Less profit means less innovation, means less future profit, means the company dies.

Yea, and they need our military protection from whom exactly?

You obviously haven't been alive that long.

Not true.

I'm sorry, but it is. Tell me what other country innovates as many cutting-edge medical devices, technique, procedures, or drugs as the US. Tell me where most doctors from around the world go to receive their training.

I gave you answer, if you don't like it. Too bad.

You didn't give me an answer. You gave me a link and hoped that I would accept that as an answer.

I want you to tell me, if your own words, why you think that the Constitution was written with specific, enumerated powers vested to congress, outlining exactly what they were allowed to do, with all other powers reserved for the states, if the "general welfare" clause was purposely included to allow congress to enact anything that was viewed as "good" for the country? How can these situations co-exist?

For the record, as I have always said, this country does need some reasonable reform measures in health care. A thousand-page bill that NOBODY READ prior to signing, with regulations, taxes, commissions, new offices, etc., is NOT the way to do it. The government cannot wave a magic wand, tell everyone to buy insurance, and think that the problem will be fixed. As I told you, health care costs are not some arbitrary fixed sum, which remains the same no matter how many people require treatment for a particular disease. If this country keeps getting more and more sick, costs will increase. If people take better care of themselves, and we stop abusing the medical system to squeeze 2 extra days out of life, costs will go down. It's really that simple.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I don't think anyone is going to bother going through the amendment process for the individual mandate if it's ruled unconstitutional. Conservatives don't want it (anymore) and liberals want single-payer universal, which can be passed as a regular bill lowering age of Medicare eligibility to birth.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
I don't think anyone is going to bother going through the amendment process for the individual mandate if it's ruled unconstitutional. Conservatives don't want it (anymore) and liberals want single-payer universal, which can be passed as a regular bill lowering age of Medicare eligibility to birth.

I wasn't speaking specifically about the mandate proposal, just using it as an example. I don't see any mention of health care being a right or something provided by the government in our Constitution, so instead of trying to twist the Constitution's words to fit an agenda, they should spell it out in an amendment.
 
Last edited:

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations.[nb 1][8] The United States life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[9]
Life expectancy in the USA is ranked 50th in the world after the European Union (40th).[10][11] The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[12][13] The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries,[14] and notes U.S. care costs the most.[15]

Yep greatest healthcare if you have the money.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
^^^You brought it up in an earlier post. Why do YOU consider it to be a "lost argument"? Because we actually have lousy results compared to most first-world nations despite it costing way more?

The entire world recognizes the US as the definitive leader in medical treatment, technology, and research.
 
Last edited:
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |