Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter tommyboy
- Start date
matttyl
Footballguy
I've asked this question as well, directly to carriers. People would still have "coverage", but would still be subject to the fine/penalty. For some, though, a non ACA compliant plan combined with the fine (even if enforceable) would cost less than an ACA compliant plan (mostly younger folks).SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet
Footballguy
The bolded is really the question. Despite my dislike of Obamacare, I can't see that there's any real evidence of your claim.But his inconvenience isn't minor. His out of pocket premiums have increased. His deductible has increased. He has to switch coverage to; keep his doctors (broken promise by the President). His taxes will have to go up. This type of thing will happen over the entirety of the middle class. You act as if this is the only family facing these "inconveniences", when there will be tens of millions more just like him - and I'm not sure "lots of poor people" will "get coverage", as "lots" is a tough word to quantify in this situation when we currently have ~50m uninsured which according to the CBO is never going to drop below ~30m (and not all ~20m newly insured are "poor"). So is it worth "inconveniencing" tens of millions of middle class to help ~10m poor "get coverage"?tommyGunZ said:While I hate the inconvenience your family is facing, there are increased taxes on the rich to help pay for the ACA. And lets be honest, if my choice is that your family keeps your doctors and poor folks get no coverage, or your family has a minor inconvenience and lots of poor people get coverage, I'd opt for the latter.snogger said:Looks like the Family will be switching to my wife's work insurance as we cannot justify the cost..
After running the numbers, if we hit both deductible's for a year, plus the extra cost for her individual insurance, the number came out to be +$3700
I understand that is ONLY if we hit both deductibles.. But then again I'll be 47 in 2 weeks, she's 44 and our daughter starts driving next year ... No way am I taking a $3700 chance..
Switching to her insurance, over mine, means an extra $100 a month for insurance..
Plus the Deducible for Family on her insurance is about $1500 more then my Family deducible would have been.
Then again, if we hit their deducible, coverage is 100% after that, whereas my insurance only kicks in 80% coverage until we hit the Max out of pocket.
Again, the really bad part on this is my Daughter has gone to the same clinic for 14 years, my wife has been going there for 20+ years and now we all have to go to a different clinic and doctor.
So in the end, those of us considered "Middle Class" getas the Rich sure the hell don't worry about this, and the poor are covered..
Yea for being middle class!!!!!!!
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
What can I say, it's a sore spot for obvious reasons. And frankly, it's true. I didn't say they don't want black people and homosexuals to have representation, I said they don't want a place that votes overwhelmingly Democratic (mostly because of the large black and gay populations) to have a vote in Congress if they can help it. I just worded it a little more strongly, for fun.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
It's not true. As I mentioned before 17k people in my company plan, and 60% of us are in an HMO that is already ACA compliant. For that 60%, our rates went up $4 per month. Additionally, those in one of the buckets of plans that were not ACA compliant were not dropped, and aren't now uninsured. They were simply rolled into a similar plan, covering virtually all the same doctor networks, but that plan has the added benefits and features that make it ACA compliant.The bolded is really the question. Despite my dislike of Obamacare, I can't see that there's any real evidence of your claim.But his inconvenience isn't minor. His out of pocket premiums have increased. His deductible has increased. He has to switch coverage to; keep his doctors (broken promise by the President). His taxes will have to go up. This type of thing will happen over the entirety of the middle class. You act as if this is the only family facing these "inconveniences", when there will be tens of millions more just like him - and I'm not sure "lots of poor people" will "get coverage", as "lots" is a tough word to quantify in this situation when we currently have ~50m uninsured which according to the CBO is never going to drop below ~30m (and not all ~20m newly insured are "poor"). So is it worth "inconveniencing" tens of millions of middle class to help ~10m poor "get coverage"?tommyGunZ said:While I hate the inconvenience your family is facing, there are increased taxes on the rich to help pay for the ACA. And lets be honest, if my choice is that your family keeps your doctors and poor folks get no coverage, or your family has a minor inconvenience and lots of poor people get coverage, I'd opt for the latter.snogger said:Looks like the Family will be switching to my wife's work insurance as we cannot justify the cost..
After running the numbers, if we hit both deductible's for a year, plus the extra cost for her individual insurance, the number came out to be +$3700
I understand that is ONLY if we hit both deductibles.. But then again I'll be 47 in 2 weeks, she's 44 and our daughter starts driving next year ... No way am I taking a $3700 chance..
Switching to her insurance, over mine, means an extra $100 a month for insurance..
Plus the Deducible for Family on her insurance is about $1500 more then my Family deducible would have been.
Then again, if we hit their deducible, coverage is 100% after that, whereas my insurance only kicks in 80% coverage until we hit the Max out of pocket.
Again, the really bad part on this is my Daughter has gone to the same clinic for 14 years, my wife has been going there for 20+ years and now we all have to go to a different clinic and doctor.
So in the end, those of us considered "Middle Class" get
Yea for being middle class!!!!!!!
So ZERO of the 17,000 people in my company are losing coverage. And yeah, if them and others rolled into a new plan means 20M-30M more folks can get coverage, it's worth it.
timschochet
Footballguy
This seems to be directed at me.
Yes I have. And I've explained why several times in this thread, and I'm sure it would bore people if I did it again. Obviously you doubt my sincerity. That's entirely up to you.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't think it's true either, but why should I take your anecdotal information any more seriously than I take his? We just don't know at this point what the effects of this law will be on the middle class.It's not true. As I mentioned before 17k people in my company plan, and 60% of us are in an HMO that is already ACA compliant. For that 60%, our rates went up $4 per month. Additionally, those in one of the buckets of plans that were not ACA compliant were not dropped, and aren't now uninsured. They were simply rolled into a similar plan, covering virtually all the same doctor networks, but that plan has the added benefits and features that make it ACA compliant.The bolded is really the question. Despite my dislike of Obamacare, I can't see that there's any real evidence of your claim.But his inconvenience isn't minor. His out of pocket premiums have increased. His deductible has increased. He has to switch coverage to; keep his doctors (broken promise by the President). His taxes will have to go up. This type of thing will happen over the entirety of the middle class. You act as if this is the only family facing these "inconveniences", when there will be tens of millions more just like him - and I'm not sure "lots of poor people" will "get coverage", as "lots" is a tough word to quantify in this situation when we currently have ~50m uninsured which according to the CBO is never going to drop below ~30m (and not all ~20m newly insured are "poor"). So is it worth "inconveniencing" tens of millions of middle class to help ~10m poor "get coverage"?tommyGunZ said:While I hate the inconvenience your family is facing, there are increased taxes on the rich to help pay for the ACA. And lets be honest, if my choice is that your family keeps your doctors and poor folks get no coverage, or your family has a minor inconvenience and lots of poor people get coverage, I'd opt for the latter.snogger said:Looks like the Family will be switching to my wife's work insurance as we cannot justify the cost..
After running the numbers, if we hit both deductible's for a year, plus the extra cost for her individual insurance, the number came out to be +$3700
I understand that is ONLY if we hit both deductibles.. But then again I'll be 47 in 2 weeks, she's 44 and our daughter starts driving next year ... No way am I taking a $3700 chance..
Switching to her insurance, over mine, means an extra $100 a month for insurance..
Plus the Deducible for Family on her insurance is about $1500 more then my Family deducible would have been.
Then again, if we hit their deducible, coverage is 100% after that, whereas my insurance only kicks in 80% coverage until we hit the Max out of pocket.
Again, the really bad part on this is my Daughter has gone to the same clinic for 14 years, my wife has been going there for 20+ years and now we all have to go to a different clinic and doctor.
So in the end, those of us considered "Middle Class" get
Yea for being middle class!!!!!!!
So ZERO of the 17,000 people in my company are losing coverage. And yeah, if them and others rolled into a new plan means 20M-30M more folks can get coverage, it's worth it.
Where I objected to matttyl's comment is that he used the term "entirety." But even if 20 million people in the middle class (a small percentage of the whole) see their insurances canceled and face more expensive insurance that they don't want, that's still too much for me. If that happens, we need to make changes or exceptions to ACA to alleviate the pain.
Tim... help me out. I am so lost here. You are saying that you don't see any evidence of ACA impacting the middle class as the poster suggested. Is it not true, that as of right now, 5 million people in this country have received letters that their current insurance plan is being discontinued because it is not ACA compliant? This did happen, right? I'm not getting sucked into some right wing Hannity-esque tornado of spin, right? I've read this on normally left-leaning media outlets, so I'm going to assume this is actually a fact unless someone can direct me elsewhere.
And common sense says that since these people's plans are non-compliant, they will need to buy a plan that has more stuff in it than their old plan had, right? And typically when you buy more stuff, it costs more, right?
Ignoring the anecdotal one-off stories, the already existing "evidence" seems to paint a pretty murky picture after a mere 2 months and unless you are closing your eyes, plugging your ears, singing lalalalalalalalala, it would appear that the evidence says that at this moment there are 5 million less people insured in the country than there were 2 months ago and that is a direct result of new mandates coming down from the ACA. Is there something more that is necessary before we can declare we are not moving in the correct direction? The corporate mandates haven't even hit yet.
Is there something I'm missing here?
And common sense says that since these people's plans are non-compliant, they will need to buy a plan that has more stuff in it than their old plan had, right? And typically when you buy more stuff, it costs more, right?
Ignoring the anecdotal one-off stories, the already existing "evidence" seems to paint a pretty murky picture after a mere 2 months and unless you are closing your eyes, plugging your ears, singing lalalalalalalalala, it would appear that the evidence says that at this moment there are 5 million less people insured in the country than there were 2 months ago and that is a direct result of new mandates coming down from the ACA. Is there something more that is necessary before we can declare we are not moving in the correct direction? The corporate mandates haven't even hit yet.
Is there something I'm missing here?
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't know the ins and outs of the District of Columbia representation debate. But I don't believe that Republicans are saying, "We don't want any more blacks or gays!" Like bringing up Rosa Parks, it's just an attack on conservatives that they're bigoted. It adds nothing to this discussion.
Stinger Ray is antagonistic to me; he has personally insulted me several times in this thread. But he doesn't deserve to be called a bigot.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Wut?
You mean physically, like you don't want it to have offices in a state? Because it already does have offices in states. Lots of them.
I recognize the awkward position you're placed in by having to justify the party's efforts to deny American citizens voting representation in Congress, but you're gonna have to do better than that.
This is what Tim does until he absolutely has no choice. Go read the NSA thread. It's futile to try to discuss things with him and I'm surprised people still try.
timschochet
Footballguy
No, I am saying that there is no evidence that it will negatively impact the ENTIRETY of the middle class, which is what matttyl wrote. Of course there is evidence that some people in the middle class are being negatively affected. How much we won't know for some time. As I wrote in the previous post, even 20 million would be too much for me.
otello
Footballguy
My immediate reaction was similar. Or, it could be a great SNL commercial.....timschochet said:DrJ said:This is actually not a bad business idea at all. You could advertise yourself as offering "Obamacare Insurance." People would pay into it every month. Some rich investor could make a killing with this.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Statorama
gangster
You do realize that this is basically reframing the "if you don't like it, move to another country" argument
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I'm happy to try to understand, but if you're going to take a position contrary to the primary reason our nation exists in the first place, you're gonna have to make a pretty strong case.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests—we did. [winks at Dean Wormer] But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg: isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Primary meaning initial rather than main. You know, the whole "no taxation without representation" American Revolution thing. Guess who's being taxed without representation?
matttyl
Footballguy
The vast majority of the "middle class" has coverage through their employer, yes? Obamacare is full of fees/taxes that are imposed on group policies to offset the risk in the newly formed exchanges. So, regardless of if someone can keep their plan or doctor or any of the rest of it, their costs HAVE TO go up due solely to these new fees/taxes (and may go up more because of the new mandates "insurance" must now provide).The bolded is really the question. Despite my dislike of Obamacare, I can't see that there's any real evidence of your claim.But his inconvenience isn't minor. His out of pocket premiums have increased. His deductible has increased. He has to switch coverage to; keep his doctors (broken promise by the President). His taxes will have to go up. This type of thing will happen over the entirety of the middle class. You act as if this is the only family facing these "inconveniences", when there will be tens of millions more just like him - and I'm not sure "lots of poor people" will "get coverage", as "lots" is a tough word to quantify in this situation when we currently have ~50m uninsured which according to the CBO is never going to drop below ~30m (and not all ~20m newly insured are "poor"). So is it worth "inconveniencing" tens of millions of middle class to help ~10m poor "get coverage"?tommyGunZ said:While I hate the inconvenience your family is facing, there are increased taxes on the rich to help pay for the ACA. And lets be honest, if my choice is that your family keeps your doctors and poor folks get no coverage, or your family has a minor inconvenience and lots of poor people get coverage, I'd opt for the latter.snogger said:Looks like the Family will be switching to my wife's work insurance as we cannot justify the cost..
After running the numbers, if we hit both deductible's for a year, plus the extra cost for her individual insurance, the number came out to be +$3700
I understand that is ONLY if we hit both deductibles.. But then again I'll be 47 in 2 weeks, she's 44 and our daughter starts driving next year ... No way am I taking a $3700 chance..
Switching to her insurance, over mine, means an extra $100 a month for insurance..
Plus the Deducible for Family on her insurance is about $1500 more then my Family deducible would have been.
Then again, if we hit their deducible, coverage is 100% after that, whereas my insurance only kicks in 80% coverage until we hit the Max out of pocket.
Again, the really bad part on this is my Daughter has gone to the same clinic for 14 years, my wife has been going there for 20+ years and now we all have to go to a different clinic and doctor.
So in the end, those of us considered "Middle Class" get
Yea for being middle class!!!!!!!
matttyl
Footballguy
So your one situation makes my statement not true? And no, "your rates" didn't go up $4 a month. Go back and look at the math you provided this thread. You pay only 15% of the cost if I recall correctly. Your employer got an increase as well, they are just paying that for you (and for 17k others) - and now have less money to give raises and such. If your plan is truly ACA compliant, then you have been hit with new reinsurance fees that you didn't have last year, as well as other ACA mandated fees. If the ACA weren't here, you likely wouldn't have received an increase at all.It's not true. As I mentioned before 17k people in my company plan, and 60% of us are in an HMO that is already ACA compliant. For that 60%, our rates went up $4 per month. Additionally, those in one of the buckets of plans that were not ACA compliant were not dropped, and aren't now uninsured. They were simply rolled into a similar plan, covering virtually all the same doctor networks, but that plan has the added benefits and features that make it ACA compliant.The bolded is really the question. Despite my dislike of Obamacare, I can't see that there's any real evidence of your claim.But his inconvenience isn't minor. His out of pocket premiums have increased. His deductible has increased. He has to switch coverage to; keep his doctors (broken promise by the President). His taxes will have to go up. This type of thing will happen over the entirety of the middle class. You act as if this is the only family facing these "inconveniences", when there will be tens of millions more just like him - and I'm not sure "lots of poor people" will "get coverage", as "lots" is a tough word to quantify in this situation when we currently have ~50m uninsured which according to the CBO is never going to drop below ~30m (and not all ~20m newly insured are "poor"). So is it worth "inconveniencing" tens of millions of middle class to help ~10m poor "get coverage"?tommyGunZ said:While I hate the inconvenience your family is facing, there are increased taxes on the rich to help pay for the ACA. And lets be honest, if my choice is that your family keeps your doctors and poor folks get no coverage, or your family has a minor inconvenience and lots of poor people get coverage, I'd opt for the latter.snogger said:Looks like the Family will be switching to my wife's work insurance as we cannot justify the cost..
After running the numbers, if we hit both deductible's for a year, plus the extra cost for her individual insurance, the number came out to be +$3700
I understand that is ONLY if we hit both deductibles.. But then again I'll be 47 in 2 weeks, she's 44 and our daughter starts driving next year ... No way am I taking a $3700 chance..
Switching to her insurance, over mine, means an extra $100 a month for insurance..
Plus the Deducible for Family on her insurance is about $1500 more then my Family deducible would have been.
Then again, if we hit their deducible, coverage is 100% after that, whereas my insurance only kicks in 80% coverage until we hit the Max out of pocket.
Again, the really bad part on this is my Daughter has gone to the same clinic for 14 years, my wife has been going there for 20+ years and now we all have to go to a different clinic and doctor.
So in the end, those of us considered "Middle Class" get
Yea for being middle class!!!!!!!
So ZERO of the 17,000 people in my company are losing coverage. And yeah, if them and others rolled into a new plan means 20M-30M more folks can get coverage, it's worth it.
Correct. They are receiving discounted rates relative to the risk/cost they represent. Someone that couldn't even get insurance before because of the risk they present is getting a spectacular deal to be able to get it now at the prices they are offering. There was a reason no one would offer them that coverage at that price before. Now someone needs to pay for that discount. This has nothing to do with free market, the free market already determined it wasn't feasible to cover them. This coverage is being provided based on government law, not the free market.Because of this, what you've predicted is likely to happen. I'd say almost certain to happen.
I don't even see how it's up for debate that we added costs. We covered a bunch of people too high risk to be covered before, we removed the caps on how much people can draw from the pool, we allowed 26 year olds to piggy back someone else's insurance, and we gave subsidies to people that have trouble affording it. And we mandated that everyone participate. That's the law in a nutshell, and everything but the last sentence adds cost.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
And as I said, since the vast majority of people in the middle class get their coverage via their employer, and that employer rates have to include new ACA fees/taxes such as reinsurance for the newly formed exchanges, they will all have to pay more because of the ACA. Maybe that cost isn't much (it's between $5-6 per enrollee per month), but it is something you have to account for before a single plan is canceled/replaced or before any Dr. is no longer in that network.
matttyl
Footballguy
Foosball God
Foos
Sorry, I'm coming into this late but are you suggesting that the District of Columbia should become a State or are you just saying they should get Representatives and Senators?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Voting representative, but really any of them would be helpful so long as there's some representation.
And this is obviously the wrong forum for it- I just took a swipe at the GOP position on the issue when it came up in a tangent, and Andy took issue with the swipe. I don't mean to distract everyone from the Obamacare bickering.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
When we expand the size of the House of Representatives to what it should be, like, 2500 to 4000 congressmen, I'd have no problem throwing 1 or 2 DC's way.
timschochet
Footballguy
If the cost isn't much, then Obamacare will not be catastrophic to the middle class. Let's be clear: I think it's reasonable to accept SOME cost increases, and some anecdotal pain to a few people around the edges, as the price for allowing more people access to health care and ultimately bringing overall health care costs down, assuming that Obamacare realizes these goals (which frankly at this point I am not.)
I don't think it's reasonable if millions of Americans face cancellation of their existing health care replaced by something they cannot afford. Millions means exactly that- even if it ended up being 5 million people, and someone like tgunz then argued that. "hey it's only a small percentage of the public", that would be too much for me. I would then be looking for solutions (which I am now, based on the strong assumption that this is going to come true.)
Loan Sharks
Not a Wolf
Try not to confuse the poor man with math. He is under the impression that 17000 people contributing $4 per month for $68000 per month is going to give insurance to 20- 30M folks. I don't know the cost of the ACA policy that would be provided to the previously uninsured, but even if it is a measly $100 per month his company is only giving insurance to 680 people. In order for Tgunz to be right at the $4 raise there would have to be about 3/4 of a billion people paying into the system, and that is only if the "free" insurance is a hundred bucks or less.
tom22406
Footballguy
Time for a little humor in this thread.
Jay Carney If you like your plan you can keep it song
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/97575-brilliant-like-can-keep-rap-video-remy/
Jay Carney If you like your plan you can keep it song
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/97575-brilliant-like-can-keep-rap-video-remy/
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Whoa- they're proposing a $7,500 per individual/$20,000 per family annual deduction for literally tens of millions of taxpayers? Have they done the math on that?
3 out of 5
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I don't see it on the fact sheet explaining the proposal, so if they did it, they didn't want to share the results for some reason.
My guess is that it's the sort of thing you can only propose when you know there's zero chance it will become law. It's not a real proposal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
This one is for Tim in relation to his belief that technology people can fix anything if just given the command to "Make it so".
Obamacare is no Starship Enterprise
Obamacare is no Starship Enterprise
3 out of 5
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
3 out of 5
Footballguy
Okay ... fixed. Still the same. I'm sure the people that have drafted and supported the bill have done the math and understand how it fits into the governmental scheme.
snogger
Footballguy
More money for those this bill was really designed for, while taking it out of the pockets of those that this bill was suppose to be for.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Right, I'm aware that my company contributes greatly to my health insurance premiums. As do most who have employer based coverage.So your one situation makes my statement not true? And no, "your rates" didn't go up $4 a month. Go back and look at the math you provided this thread. You pay only 15% of the cost if I recall correctly. Your employer got an increase as well, they are just paying that for you (and for 17k others) - and now have less money to give raises and such. If your plan is truly ACA compliant, then you have been hit with new reinsurance fees that you didn't have last year, as well as other ACA mandated fees. If the ACA weren't here, you likely wouldn't have received an increase at all.It's not true. As I mentioned before 17k people in my company plan, and 60% of us are in an HMO that is already ACA compliant. For that 60%, our rates went up $4 per month. Additionally, those in one of the buckets of plans that were not ACA compliant were not dropped, and aren't now uninsured. They were simply rolled into a similar plan, covering virtually all the same doctor networks, but that plan has the added benefits and features that make it ACA compliant.The bolded is really the question. Despite my dislike of Obamacare, I can't see that there's any real evidence of your claim.But his inconvenience isn't minor. His out of pocket premiums have increased. His deductible has increased. He has to switch coverage to; keep his doctors (broken promise by the President). His taxes will have to go up. This type of thing will happen over the entirety of the middle class. You act as if this is the only family facing these "inconveniences", when there will be tens of millions more just like him - and I'm not sure "lots of poor people" will "get coverage", as "lots" is a tough word to quantify in this situation when we currently have ~50m uninsured which according to the CBO is never going to drop below ~30m (and not all ~20m newly insured are "poor"). So is it worth "inconveniencing" tens of millions of middle class to help ~10m poor "get coverage"?tommyGunZ said:While I hate the inconvenience your family is facing, there are increased taxes on the rich to help pay for the ACA. And lets be honest, if my choice is that your family keeps your doctors and poor folks get no coverage, or your family has a minor inconvenience and lots of poor people get coverage, I'd opt for the latter.snogger said:Looks like the Family will be switching to my wife's work insurance as we cannot justify the cost..
After running the numbers, if we hit both deductible's for a year, plus the extra cost for her individual insurance, the number came out to be +$3700
I understand that is ONLY if we hit both deductibles.. But then again I'll be 47 in 2 weeks, she's 44 and our daughter starts driving next year ... No way am I taking a $3700 chance..
Switching to her insurance, over mine, means an extra $100 a month for insurance..
Plus the Deducible for Family on her insurance is about $1500 more then my Family deducible would have been.
Then again, if we hit their deducible, coverage is 100% after that, whereas my insurance only kicks in 80% coverage until we hit the Max out of pocket.
Again, the really bad part on this is my Daughter has gone to the same clinic for 14 years, my wife has been going there for 20+ years and now we all have to go to a different clinic and doctor.
So in the end, those of us considered "Middle Class" get
Yea for being middle class!!!!!!!
So ZERO of the 17,000 people in my company are losing coverage. And yeah, if them and others rolled into a new plan means 20M-30M more folks can get coverage, it's worth it.
Why wouldn't my premiums increase w/o the ACA? Haven't premiums been rising every year for the last 20 years? They would have suddenly halted premium increases this year? LOL
Sand
Footballguy
I guess he lives in DC and doesn't understand the Constitution and the reason behind the special rules there?
Sand
Footballguy
Similar threads
