Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Slateman]

I will admit I haven't studied the details, and it's based on a couple of things like the number of employees, overall company revenue, and profit.

It would be cheaper to drop all employees insurance and simply pay the penalty.

 

Short term, perhaps. But then the employees who are worth anything would go to that company's competitor who does over private insurance.

 

I'm asking because my company does offer private insurance, but I'm wondering if it would simply be  cheaper to get an ACA plan. I don't have kids and won't for another year and my wife and are are pretty healthy. The only reason I get insurance is because I know that if I don't, I'll have some sort of accident that requires the hospital. Why? Because Murphy and I are old friends and he likes to screw me every now and again.

[chipwhich]

Short term, perhaps. But then the employees who are worth anything would go to that company's competitor who does over private insurance.

 

I'm asking because my company does offer private insurance, but I'm wondering if it would simply be  cheaper to get an ACA plan. I don't have kids and won't for another year and my wife and are are pretty healthy. The only reason I get insurance is because I know that if I don't, I'll have some sort of accident that requires the hospital. Why? Because Murphy and I are old friends and he likes to screw me every now and again.

 

Yes, exactly why I wouldn't dump my employees into it.  It would be cheaper.  I think it will also lead to considering just covering employees only and not their spouse or family.  That said, businesses run in packs.  So if everyone dumps their employees, there is no fear of losing anyone to a competitor.

If I were making a decision, I would hold on tight to my employee plan.

[Wrong Direction]

If you're a business that has skilled employees, it matters more to keep your items like health insurance. If you need unskilled labor, you can let people go and replace them pretty easily.

[Duckus]

My wife and daughter are insured through her school (she is in grad school). It is insanely expensive. Estimates for us via the exchange is about $1,000 less per year. So excited.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Duckus

[chipwhich]

My wife and daughter are insured through her school (she is in grad school). It is insanely expensive. Estimates for us via the exchange is about $1,000 less per year. So excited.

 

The reason you can't compare the two is you don't have all of the details.

I would say the biggest expense between plans can be in prescription drugs.  An identical prescription drug in BC/BS will have better negotiated rates which could cost hundreds more than the exchange.  In addition things like copays, deductibles, etc it could cost you even more.

It all depends on how much you rely on your insurance to pay for things.

It may save you, it may cost you more.  Not enough information.

[Wrong Direction]

Customer satisfaction surveys months into this will be interesting.

[PeterMP]

There's no easy solution to our nation's healthcare problem. I want to be clear on that. You don't attempt to insure 7-30 million people in a revenue neutral environment, and that's our biggest conundrum.

 

1. ObamaCare is a very significant coster. This is not a revenue neutral bill, not even close. 

2. Before the ACA, we were already facing massive deficits.

3. We have to have health reform, but we can't afford to do it wrong.

4. We have to have entitlement reform, but we don't have the political will to change it from what we have now.

 

I really think Republicans are positioning themselves badly right now and it's a shame because I think the opportunity to either get this president to make meaningful improvements or the opportunity to make him look small is there. Either would be better than what they're doing now. Their message is about a broken bill, without acknowledgement of what's broken about the bill and a substantive alternative. 

 

Yes. Provider networks are more limited under the ACA than most private insurance. 

 

In terms of the costs, do you have link for that?

 

The latest thing I can find from the CBO is that the net costs will actually DECREASE the deficit:

 

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

 

"Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade."

 

Is this a case where if we assume A, B, and C do happen, and X, Y, and Z don't happen it costs (where the law actually says that A, B, C, X, Y, and Z all will happen)?

[chipwhich]

PeterMP,

 

While I disagree with you a lot, I appreciate your post.  Much of the tailgate is like our Government.  Screaming from the mountain tops while not actually providing context to their opposition.  You do that.

 

And BTW, While I disagree with Obamacare, I think the Republicans need to suck it and offer up a clean bill.

 

That said, with my experience in healthcare and the costs skyrocketing, I don't know how the CBO can come up with an honest estimate.  Healthcare is out of control.  The outcome is unknown.  Any estimate is really a WAG.

[PeterMP]

PeterMP,

 

While I disagree with you a lot, I appreciate your post.  Much of the tailgate is like our Government.  Screaming from the mountain tops while not actually providing context to their opposition.  You do that.

 

And BTW, While I disagree with Obamacare, I think the Republicans need to suck it and offer up a clean bill.

 

That said, with my experience in healthcare and the costs skyrocketing, I don't know how the CBO can come up with an honest estimate.  Healthcare is out of control.  The outcome is unknown.  Any estimate is really a WAG.

 

Thanks!

 

I'm not a big fan of Obamacare either in terms of a health care law or fixing the issues with medical and insurance costs (I suspect its affect on such things will be small and will be over come by equally small, but bad economic affects (e.g. discentivizing work)), but I am very pro-reduce deficit and long term balance budget, and if Obamacare will help hold people's feet to the fire and help get that done, I support it.

 

(I should point out, I'm not pro-use the idea of a balance budget and reducing deficit as way to force the federal goverment back to its functions in the 1950s OTHER than military spending, which is what many Republicans seem to support today and what they really mean when they talk about balancing the budget.)

Edited October 2, 2013 by PeterMP

[Bliz]

I read it.

What it didn't tell you is when the good health plans with cheap prices have all the sick people switching to that plan, premiums will rise significantly to costs for caring for these people.

 

Well, if you read it, then you missed the point.  So I will clarify where I was going with that.

 

You have your doubts.  You've made them clear.  But there are reasons for optimism too.  The problem is, you're focused like a laser beam on the flaws of cheap insurance (high deductibles, low co-insurance) and on your doubt that low costs will be sustainable, so much so that you shut out and refuse to consider anything that is contrary to your currently-held view.

 

The reason you can't compare the two is you don't have all of the details.

I would say the biggest expense between plans can be in prescription drugs.  An identical prescription drug in BC/BS will have better negotiated rates which could cost hundreds more than the exchange.  In addition things like copays, deductibles, etc it could cost you even more.

It all depends on how much you rely on your insurance to pay for things.

It may save you, it may cost you more.  Not enough information.

 

And here's a good example of what I was just talking about.  You assume that the poster is an idiot.  He couldn't possibly be saving money, it must be that he's just less informed than you.  NEver mind that all of the details of his plan were required to be spelled out very clearly on the Exchange.  If he's happy and think he's saving money, then it must be that he's too dumb to know the difference between his old plan and his new one.  A very disrespectful post, IMO, which also shows your own knowledge gaps.

 

Too expensive is rather subjective and bad results are not a metric in the original networks drawn up (they will be rated later,as well as procedures)

 

I would suggest looking carefully before leaping

 

I disagree.  Because you're being too general.

 

Too expensive is not easy (or necessarily proper) when you're comparing cardiac surgeons.  But it's very easy in some other respects.  If you charge $1,000 for an MRI and other people are charging $500 for an MRI, an insurer is going to look at that and start forcing your hand.  Same for labs, meds, fixed costs for overnight stays, etc. 

 

Bad results is also an easy metric, in some respects.  I bet if you talk to the right people, they know the precise anticipated success rate of particular surgeries.  So if I know that a particular knee surgery will be what we call a success 80% of the time, 5% of people will develop infections and have to come back to have them treated, and 15% of people will require a 2nd surgery in order to achieve the desired result, over time I can use those numbers to evaluate how you're doing.  If you have a statistically significant difference in the number of people developing infections or requiring that 2nd surgery, boom, bad results.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Bliz

[Bliz]

Maybe someone can help me, but what are the limitations to plans under the ACA? Like with normal insurance, some doctors won't take it, or to see a specialist you have to be referred by your primary care physician. Does ACA have anything like this?

 

Not exactly.  The ACA is just a series of mandates.  Insurers can design their plans however they want, subject only to certain minimum benefits that they must offer (e.g., the plans must be projected to cover no less than 60% of costs, that certain minimum essential services be covered, maximum out-of-pocket expense, etc.).  Some plans will be more generous, some will be less generous, and naturally the more generous plans will come with a higher monthly premium.  All of the plans are still through private insurers.  So if a doctor doesn't take BCBS now, then a BCBS plan offered through the Exchange will be in the same boat.  The ACA wouldn't address something like referral to a specialist.

 

 

Yes. Provider networks are more limited under the ACA than most private insurance. 

 

edit on reading twa's link - appears I was wrong about that one.  Though I still wonder how universally true this will prove to be.  Some insurers will attempt to control costs by limiting networks.  But how many do that, how limited the networks become, is going to be a very localized issue.

 

Does a company only have to offer insurance to avoid the 2k penalty or does the employee have to use it?

 

For companies that are subject to the mandate (50+ full time equivalent employees) they must offer it to at least all full-time employees in order to avoid the penalty.  The employee is free to go to the Exchange if they want, even if the employer offers a plan.  No requirement that the employee use the employer's plan, but if there is an employer plan out there then you lose out on certain tax credits or incentives offered to people who do not have an employer plan.

 

 

 

I'm asking because my company does offer private insurance, but I'm wondering if it would simply be  cheaper to get an ACA plan. I don't have kids and won't for another year and my wife and are are pretty healthy. The only reason I get insurance is because I know that if I don't, I'll have some sort of accident that requires the hospital. Why? Because Murphy and I are old friends and he likes to screw me every now and again.

 

You should be wondering that.  It's a smart thing to wonder.  Go to the Exchange and find out.  That's what I'm going to do.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Bliz

[twa]

Bliz are they accounting for the different types of MRI's in your example?...what you speak of is already done by ins

ICER and QALY and such are simply tools and are only as good as the one using them....like surgeons with a scalpel.

 

the main point remains the ratings you refer to are non-existent at this point.

 

add

 Bliz .....the networks are not the same in most instances,decidedly so in some states

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/health/lower-health-insurance-premiums-to-come-at-cost-of-fewer-choices.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&

Edited October 2, 2013 by twa

[Bliz]

Yes they're non-existent.  Because the plans haven't even started offering coverage yet.  They may not be out there until Jan 1 2015.

 

But as a response to the complaint that the Exchange will only allow people to price-shop, what I said remains a valid point.  Price-shopping today, true, but in the future there will also be ratings and information pertaining to customer satisfaction and other things that allow for a more informed decision.

 

the more you know...

[skinsmarydu]

My husband had an MRI, and while shopping around for the closest clinic, found that paying for it straight out of pocket was less expensive than using our insurance.  So that's what we did.  He said he could hear the insurance lady's head explode over the phone as he was explaining it...that he wasn't going to cost the rest of the Humana network for something that was clearly more easily done on his own.

[Wrong Direction]

In terms of the costs, do you have link for that?

 

The latest thing I can find from the CBO is that the net costs will actually DECREASE the deficit:

 

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

 

 

No, I don't have a link. It's an anecdote from a person I know who works closely with CBO. I think we're scheduled to talk next week at the latest. I'll try to figure out what he's talking about. 

[Wrong Direction]

That's bad information. 

 

While some people speculate that, down the road, provider networks will become more limited as insurers seek to control costs, there is no evidence I have seen that is happening right now.  The ACA is just a framework.  All of the insurance is still private insurance.  If your doctor is in Humana's network today, they're probably still going to be in Humana's network on January 2.

 

 

I can't figure out how to quote Bliz, so this is in response to the above post.

 

My information is from a prominent NY insurance broker. He told me over the summer that this is what plans are doing to hold down premiums this year. Thinking about it now, I'm not 100% sure whether he's referring to private employer plans or exchange plans. I thought he was speaking of the latter, but I could be wrong. I've separately heard (anecdotal, not corroborated) that some areas are basically getting Medicaid provider networks. 

 

There are a couple of points about this which may or may not mitigate opinions about provider networks. First, the ACA has network adequacy standards. So, even if plans aren't contracting with as many people as they historically do, if the federal adequacy standards are strong enough, access to doctors should be fine. My understanding is that access to primary care docs is good, but access to specialists might be a bigger challenge. 

 

Second, in my discussions with plans, they focus much more on benefit design then network size to lower costs. According to a couple of major plans and plan contractors that I've spoken to in the last couple of days, they say basic out of pocket cost sharing is critical to managing costs. If that's true, actual costs under the ACA *might* not be that bad. Of course, that's if the ACA gets a cross section of patients. If the people who enroll are predominantly 1) poor and heavily subsidized or 2) very sick and thus heavily subsidized after the out of pocket limit, it'll be very difficult to hold down costs.

[chipwhich]

Well, if you read it, then you missed the point.  So I will clarify where I was going with that.

 

You have your doubts.  You've made them clear.  But there are reasons for optimism too.  The problem is, you're focused like a laser beam on the flaws of cheap insurance (high deductibles, low co-insurance) and on your doubt that low costs will be sustainable, so much so that you shut out and refuse to consider anything that is contrary to your currently-held view.

 

 

"But there are reasons for optimism too."

 

Oh really?  Please share.  You did a lot of  barking but you didn't say anything.  What are the reasons for optimism?

 

"you shut out and refuse to consider anything that is contrary to your currently-held view"

 

The only poster to share a contrary view with anything to back it up was PeterMP, and that was just about the cost of the ACA to the Government.  If you have any contrary basis to backup your ACA is going to be great view, please share.

 

"And here's a good example of what I was just talking about.  You assume that the poster is an idiot.  He couldn't possibly be saving money, it must be that he's just less informed than you.  NEver mind that all of the details of his plan were required to be spelled out very clearly on the Exchange.  If he's happy and think he's saving money, then it must be that he's too dumb to know the difference between his old plan and his new one.  A very disrespectful post, IMO, which also shows your own knowledge gaps"

 

1.  If you read my post it says he may or may not save money.  The truth is it's unknown.  I never said he wouldn't or would or said he is too dumb.

2.  You don't know what you are talking about with regards to "all of the details are spellled out in the exchange.  Listen, the devil is in the details.  The real details that the exchange wont tell you is if I have a prescription for Liperol or any other drug, how much does it cost me under the plan.  The exchange doesn't tell you that.  There are a lot of things you can't derive from the exchange.

3.  If I have knowledge gaps, please inform me.  Don't try and insult me without any information.  I am all ears.

[PeterMP]

"But there are reasons for optimism too."

 

Oh really?  Please share.  You did a lot of  barking but you didn't say anything.  What are the reasons for optimism?

 

There is evidence that it might already bend the costs curve:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/

 

Longer term, I think the IPAB is a very promising idea:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616543

 

(To be fair on the other side, there is also work by academic economists in terms of de-centivizing work so that would be an unoptomistic out come.)

[Bliz]

"But there are reasons for optimism too."

 

Oh really?  Please share.  You did a lot of  barking but you didn't say anything.  What are the reasons for optimism?

 

"you shut out and refuse to consider anything that is contrary to your currently-held view"

 

The only poster to share a contrary view with anything to back it up was PeterMP, and that was just about the cost of the ACA to the Government.  If you have any contrary basis to backup your ACA is going to be great view, please share.

 

"And here's a good example of what I was just talking about.  You assume that the poster is an idiot.  He couldn't possibly be saving money, it must be that he's just less informed than you.  NEver mind that all of the details of his plan were required to be spelled out very clearly on the Exchange.  If he's happy and think he's saving money, then it must be that he's too dumb to know the difference between his old plan and his new one.  A very disrespectful post, IMO, which also shows your own knowledge gaps"

 

1.  If you read my post it says he may or may not save money.  The truth is it's unknown.  I never said he wouldn't or would or said he is too dumb.

2.  You don't know what you are talking about with regards to "all of the details are spellled out in the exchange.  Listen, the devil is in the details.  The real details that the exchange wont tell you is if I have a prescription for Liperol or any other drug, how much does it cost me under the plan.  The exchange doesn't tell you that.  There are a lot of things you can't derive from the exchange.

3.  If I have knowledge gaps, please inform me.  Don't try and insult me without any information.  I am all ears.

 

Nothing is for certain with any of this.  It's going to be a trial by fire.  The article I linked was an example of reasons for optimism.  I recognize there are reasons for pessimism too.  And I'm not convinced it's going to be great all the way around.  There are parts of it I like, and parts of it I don't.  And some things that concern me greatly

 

The poster your responded to is saying he'll save money on his new plan.  The devil may be in the details, but you don't know the details.  He does.  If he feels the plans are comparable in terms of coverage/coinsurance/deductible and the premiums are less, than it's a pretty good likelihood he'll save money.  But you assumed that he had not basis for saying he would save.

 

"The real details that the exchange wont tell you is if I have a prescription for Liperol or any other drug, how much does it cost me under the plan."

 

Prescription drug payments are required to be listed, along with many other details of the plan.  The exchange will tell you that, as long as you know what tier the drugs you take are in (or you know how much you pay for it now, and what your current benefit is).   

 

What things that are relevant as to costs or value of the plan can you not derive from the exchange?  The Exchange will tell you copays (incl for specialists and hospitals); outpatient, ER, drug, in network, out of network, deductible, coinsurance, labs, x-rays...  The only true unknown in all of this is what happens to you next year.  Otherwise the Exchange gives you as much information on costs and expenses as you could reasonably hope for. 

 

Here's the link to the details on RI plans that I posted in the other thread.  http://www.healthsourceri.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HealthSourceRI-Individual-Plans-all-info-FINAL-08202013.pdf

 

You can look at that and come to a reasonable conclusion about whether one of those plans is a better value than your current plan.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Bliz

[chipwhich]

The devil may be in the details, but you don't know the details.  He does. 

 

If he feels the plans are comparable in terms of coverage/coinsurance/deductible and the premiums are less, than it's a pretty good likelihood he'll save money.  But you assumed that he had not basis for saying he would save.

 

No he doesn't, nor do you, nor do I for that matter.  I am speaking on experience of my own health insurance issues with my employees.

 

 

Prescription drug payments are required to be listed, along with many other details of the plan.  The exchange will tell you that, as long as you know what tier the drugs you take are in (or you know how much you pay for it now, and what your current benefit is). 

 

No they won't.  Here is a good article for you.  http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/prescription_drug_coverage_under_obamacare_comes_at_an_unspecified_price.html

 

 

What things that are relevant as to costs or value of the plan can you not derive from the exchange?  The Exchange will tell you copays (incl for specialists and hospitals); outpatient, ER, drug, in network, out of network, deductible, coinsurance, labs, x-rays...  The only true unknown in all of this is what happens to you next year.  Otherwise the Exchange gives you as much information on costs and expenses as you could reasonably hope for.

 

Prescription drug costs for one.  Not to mention the fact that when you sign up for health insurance in an exchange, even if they could provide prescription drug pricing, if you have never had health insurance you might not have a clue what a doctor prescribes you.

 

 

Here's the link to the details on RI plans that I posted in the other thread.  http://www.healthsourceri.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HealthSourceRI-Individual-Plans-all-info-FINAL-08202013.pdf

 

You can look at that and come to a reasonable conclusion about whether one of those plans is a better value than your current plan.

 

That link provides me the same thing my benefits broker provides me when I pick insurance plans, what it doesn't show is the details.

An example I used before.  This is happened to my friend.  Friend has a child with a speech impediment since birth.  Has BC/BS for years.  BC/BS covers childs voice therapy.  It's more complicated than looking at a chart on the exchange because there are many different types of voice therapy and reasons for coverage.  Anyways, company switches to Cigna.  Friend goes to take kid to voice therapy.  They say it's not covered.  Voice therapy is covered just NOT for his kid because Cigna doesn't believe the kids type of illness is treatable by voice therapy.  So now friend has to pay out of pocket.

That little matrix you link to means nothing, and if I used simply that to pick my plans, my employees might riot.  Level of service between blue cross blue shield and coventry is night and day even though on your matrix they might look comparable....and they are known entities.

 

We will no more in a year, but based on my experience with health care, I am not optimistic...because the details are what matter, and those details are what I have to consider every year when renewing for my employees.  Some policies are cheaper than others for a reason.

[balki1867]

So, in reality, there's no reason for anyone who has private health insurance to switch, unless they're cheap ****s.

 

What are "exchanges?"

 

If you're young, healthy and don't have kids, getting your own policy is massively cheaper than employer insurance.  I thought about it many times in my 20s but was always afraid of the rare circumstance where I had a legitimate big-ticket medical problem and the insurance company pulled out the 'pre-existing condition' maneuver because I forgot to disclose stubbing my toe when I was 12 on my application.

 

I'm not an expert on ACA but my inclination is that the pre-existing condition rules would prevent these shenanigans and I'd probably look at a private policy much more closely.  And if enough younger, healthier people go this route, this is precisely what will make the marketplace work.

[Bliz]

No he doesn't, nor do you, nor do I for that matter.  I am speaking on experience of my own health insurance issues with my employees.

 

 

No they won't.  Here is a good article for you.  http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/prescription_drug_coverage_under_obamacare_comes_at_an_unspecified_price.html

 

 

Prescription drug costs for one.  Not to mention the fact that when you sign up for health insurance in an exchange, even if they could provide prescription drug pricing, if you have never had health insurance you might not have a clue what a doctor prescribes you.

 

 

That link provides me the same thing my benefits broker provides me when I pick insurance plans, what it doesn't show is the details.

An example I used before.  This is happened to my friend.  Friend has a child with a speech impediment since birth.  Has BC/BS for years.  BC/BS covers childs voice therapy.  It's more complicated than looking at a chart on the exchange because there are many different types of voice therapy and reasons for coverage.  Anyways, company switches to Cigna.  Friend goes to take kid to voice therapy.  They say it's not covered.  Voice therapy is covered just NOT for his kid because Cigna doesn't believe the kids type of illness is treatable by voice therapy.  So now friend has to pay out of pocket.

That little matrix you link to means nothing, and if I used simply that to pick my plans, my employees might riot.  Level of service between blue cross blue shield and coventry is night and day even though on your matrix they might look comparable....and they are known entities.

 

We will no more in a year, but based on my experience with health care, I am not optimistic...because the details are what matter, and those details are what I have to consider every year when renewing for my employees.  Some policies are cheaper than others for a reason.

 

The problem is that you have set a nearly impossible standard, one which I think would be detrimental to most people because it would give them such an overwhelming amoung of information the plans would cease to make sense.  You want it to list every condition it does or doesn't cover?  Or how much every drug known to man costs?  Of course not.  But if you do have a particular illness requiring a particular treatment I believe you could go to a broker and get that information, but I'm not sure.

 

Most individuals making purchasing decisions on the individual market have used that matrix or its approximate equivalent in making decisions for years.  Does it give you every single detail?  No.  But it gives you a pretty  good idea about the straight cost/value of a plan for a regular person in generally good health. 

Edited October 2, 2013 by Bliz

[chipwhich]

The problem is that you have set a nearly impossible standard, one which I think would be detrimental to most people because it would give them such an overwhelming amoung of information the plans would cease to make sense.  You want it to list every condition it does or doesn't cover?  Or how much every drug known to man costs?  Of course not.  But if you do have a particular illness requiring a particular treatment I believe you could go to a broker and get that information, but I'm not sure.

 

<Chases tail>

 

No I don't want it to list every possible condition, which is my whole point.  You make it for me.  What I said is basically you will get what you pay for, cheap insurance will mean lesser benefits and more expensive things like prescription drugs.  I am simply stating what to expect from Obamacare.

 

You accuse me of calling a guy an idiot because I let him know you can't tell the actual inside costs and whether he is actually saving $1000.  You say hey look at my neat little matrix it tells everything.  Then I point out what that matrix and what the exchange can't show consumers, and you say you want it to show everything?

 

Premiums mean nothing and that grid you keep linking means nothing.  The devil is in the details like what ACTUALLY is covered.  Who cares if you save $1000 in premium is you spend $2000 more on prescription drugs.  Or the new plan doesn't actually cover something you actually need.

 

But thanks for proving my pont.

 

</Chases Tail>

 

 

 

Most individuals making purchasing decisions on the individual market have used that matrix or its approximate equivalent in making decisions for years.  Does it give you every single detail?  No.  But it gives you a pretty  good idea about the straight cost/value of a plan for a regular person in generally good health.

That is correct.  But that's not what Americans want Obamacare for.  It's for those that are sick and actually have to use it.  You know COVERAGE -vs INSURANCE.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Sadly, this doesn't surprise me.

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE

[twa]

Sadly, this doesn't surprise me.

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE

it just shows how the wording in polls matter....and what you leave out

 

listing the things people like w/o the things they hate gives false impressions