Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-30-2007, 07:57 PM   #121
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclemick View Post
My first day at megacorp 1966. Otherwise they would have paid me in cash what it cost them and let me skip/find my own insurance.
I think our health care system would be in much better shape if we did that.

It wasn't until WW2-era wage freezes were imposed that our modern concept of "employee benefits" really took off, because there was intense competition for stateside labor and benefits were exempt from the wage freeze.

I can't help but think inflation and spiraling costs in the health care system would be much more under control if cost-consciousness by consumers was in the mix this whole time. Yeah, that wouldn't fix everything, but I think we'd be considerably better off than we actually are...
__________________

__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-30-2007, 08:28 PM   #122
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Opinions are just dandy.

Opinions supplanted with data mined facts and presented as whole facts...not so much.
__________________

__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 09:01 PM   #123
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazer08 View Post
Sgeeee, sorry to burst your bubble but I am a very informed person. For many years I paid the health ins premiums and payroll taxes for my husbands business. I'm probaby one of the few individuals of my generatation who have a clue about running a business and it's hidden costs. You just sit back at your keyboard and keep making assumtions of people posting on this board who have an opinion that differs from your own.
Why don't you itemize all of your costs for the present healthcare system (direct and indirect). I would love to see how a smart entrepeneur :confused: does that calculation. Don't leave any out.

As an executive at two different fortune 500 companies, I know how we used to compile costs. I also know that we were smarter than to believe the balance sheet told the whole story. But please enlighten us.
__________________
sgeeeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 09:04 PM   #124
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Talk about the "standard Kool Aide" . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cut-Throat View Post
Most all of the poor helped these executives get rich and it is the rich's responsibility to ensure that the people that made them wealthy are taken care of in their illness or old age.
Nope. Everyone (rich, poor, stockholder, employee" entered into an agreement of their own free will. Lower wage workers wanted jobs, and they could sell their skills/labor anywhere in the world. They sold their labor to an employer, who paid them at the time (wages, maybe benefits) and may have offered them promises of other compensation later (a pension). That's it. The bargain was been made and everyone traded something and got something they wanted.

It is not the responsibility of the "rich" to "ensure that the people that made them wealthy are taken care of in illness or old age" unless that was part of the original deal. The folks owning the business made the workers "rich" in exactly the same way that the workers made the owners "rich."
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 09:15 PM   #125
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Nope. Everyone (rich, poor, stockholder, employee" entered into an agreement of their own free will. Lower wage workers wanted jobs, and they could sell their skills/labor anywhere in the world. They sold their labor to an employer, who paid them at the time (wages, maybe benefits) and may have offered them promises of other compensation later (a pension). That's it. The bargain was been made and everyone traded something and got something they wanted.
I'd be inclined to agree with you except that the government meddled with the market during WW2. One could argue that such wartime meddling is warranted, but it had unintended consequences.

The wage controls during the war meant employers competing for labor had to "beat" each other in ways other than direct cash compensation. And "employee paid medical" was born.

By the time that practice was well entrenched, people could be forgiven for assuming health insurance was part of an employer's responsibility; it has been for 2-3 generations! These days, we see it kills our global competitiveness; pension and health care obligations are crushing American businesses against foreign competition where business has no such direct responsibility.0 It has shielded American consumers from the true cost of health care for decades. Furthermore, it all but destroyed the market for competitive individual health insurance, and made it so expensive that many people are all but uninsurable because the cost of health care causes many of the young and healthy to go without.

I have trouble believing government could get us out of a problem that government was part of the cause of. But I'm not sure how a completely free-market solution can get us out of it. To some degree, if you allowed employed individuals to write off health care premiums (just as employers can) and had employers give the money they spend on health care to their employees, it might be a start. I could get a pretty decent high-deductible plan and a fully-funded HSA for what they are paying (let alone my contribution of about 20% of the total cost).

Perhaps some government nudges toward a freer-market solution could help, but it could make things worse if it suddenly disrupts things too much. If it unlocked additional wealth, maybe that could help provide baseline care for those who can't afford it. Not perfect, but possibly better than the status quo if done right.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 09:18 PM   #126
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Talk about the "standard Kool Aide" . . .


Nope. Everyone (rich, poor, stockholder, employee" entered into an agreement of their own free will. Lower wage workers wanted jobs, and they could sell their skills/labor anywhere in the world. They sold their labor to an employer, who paid them at the time (wages, maybe benefits) and may have offered them promises of other compensation later (a pension). That's it. The bargain was been made and everyone traded something and got something they wanted.

It is not the responsibility of the "rich" to "ensure that the people that made them wealthy are taken care of in illness or old age" unless that was part of the original deal. The folks owning the business made the workers "rich" in exactly the same way that the workers made the owners "rich."
The responsibility is society. The government shall levy taxes to provide for the society. The security and stability of the nation depends on it.

- So we agree to disagree!
__________________
Cut-Throat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 09:39 PM   #127
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
I'd be inclined to agree with you except that the
Perhaps some government nudges toward a freer-market solution could help, but it could make things worse if it suddenly disrupts things too much. If it unlocked additional wealth, maybe that could help provide baseline care for those who can't afford it. Not perfect, but possibly better than the status quo if done right.
Ziggy - I don't know how much of my other posts you have read, but I really like the HSA concept if we are going to continue to have employer-sponsored coverage. Many of our groups (clients) are able to save enough in premiums to set aside the ENTIRE deductible in HSA accounts for their employees as a BENEFIT. What a concept! Lower premiums, 100% coverage for the employees AND a savings account that they can keep and grow year after year tax free if they use the money wisely.

On the other hand, I think the ultimate solution would be to have a guaranteed issue gov't sponsored catastrophic plan with preventive care and BAN employer-sponsored coverage altogether, but encourage employers to REPLACE their health plans with tax advantaged HRAs (health reimbursement arrangements) or HSAs (health savings accounts) as a BENEFIT that employees could use towards their premiums, deductible or medical expenses as they wish. At the same time, allow private carriers to sell "buy-up" plans for anyone who wants one.

A plan like that could save employers millions, encourage smarter usage of healthcare dollars, bring back some sense of the cost of healthcare to employees, and still potentially give people Cadillac coverage, if they work for a company that fully funds their deductible in an HRA or HSA.

The overall concept should help flatten healthcare inflation, which would eventually lead to more people being able to obtain coverage on their own at an affordable price.
__________________
mykidslovedogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 10:01 PM   #128
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs View Post
Ziggy - I don't know how much of my other posts you have read, but I really like the HSA concept if we are going to continue to have employer-sponsored coverage. Many of our groups (clients) are able to save enough in premiums to set aside the ENTIRE deductible in HSA accounts for their employees as a BENEFIT. What a concept! Lower premiums, 100% coverage for the employees AND a savings account that they can keep and grow year after year tax free if they use the money wisely.
HSAs are a good concept but they're not the whole picture. I'd agree it's a good starting point for people who can afford to self-insure minor problems and routine visits. And to the extent that employers remain in the picture, better to offer more options including HDHPs with (perhaps) some employer contribution to an HSA.

As much as business complains about health care costs, they have golden handcuffs on a lot of people -- people who can't afford to leave their jobs, not because of the income but because of the loss of group health insurance.

HIPAA is a start but it's not enough. For one thing, you need to exhaust 18 months of COBRA which is VERY expensive ($800-$1000 a month for many families). For another, although HIPAA gives "guaranteed issue" it doesn't guarantee affordable premiums. Without that guarantee the guaranteed issue is useless; if an insurer doesn't want people who have had X, they can just jack up their premiums for those who have had X to something ridiculously unaffordable.

At least some baseline degree of guaranteed-issue is needed, IMO. We can quibble about how to pay for it, and who pays -- individuals, businesses, government -- but this can not be solved unless we solve what I call the "affordable portability" problem. That is the first big thing to work on, IMO.

Most likely this is going to be something that has a burden shared by individuals, employers and government. I'd prefer to get employers out of the picture entirely at some point, though, other than to encourage them to "gross up" their employees with the much of amount they currently spend on health care and start giving people the ability to purchase their own policies in a competitive market; with the $8-10K employers often spend, people could instead channel that toward a decent health plan plus a few thousand in the HSA to cover the high deductibles. But insurability should not be tied to a specific job, and that would require that we eliminate adverse selection. Is "mandatory" coverage the answer? I don't know. There is no easy answer.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 11:02 PM   #129
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
Most likely this is going to be something that has a burden shared by individuals, employers and government. I'd prefer to get employers out of the picture entirely at some point, though, other than to encourage them to "gross up" their employees with the much of amount they currently spend on health care and start giving people the ability to purchase their own policies in a competitive market; with the $8-10K employers often spend, people could instead channel that toward a decent health plan plus a few thousand in the HSA to cover the high deductibles. But insurability should not be tied to a specific job, and that would require that we eliminate adverse selection. Is "mandatory" coverage the answer? I don't know. There is no easy answer.
HIPPA laws are rediculously confusing. I think you've got to have some sort of standardized, federally mandated, portable, at minimum, catastrophic coverage to help reduce, if not eliminate, adverse selection (ideally, these plans would be part of the mix of plans that private insurers would be required to offer). This plan could kind of be like the baseline medicare advantage plans offered by private carriers at no cost, because the gov't would pay the private carriers the complete premium in exchange for them to administrate and manage the distribution of basic plan. -- That would help flatten inflation...reason being is that insurance would pick up where healthcare users leave off in paying their bills (in other words, doctors wouldn't have to write off so much bad debt from people who fail to pay for services, because insurers would pay above the deductible, so less cost shifting would occur.)

I'd also like to see employers completely out of the picture, except for allowing them the freedom to contribute to HRAs as an employee benefit that employees can use to pay for deductibles.
__________________
mykidslovedogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 12:27 AM   #130
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs View Post
Ziggy - I don't know how much of my other posts you have read, but I really like the HSA concept if we are going to continue to have employer-sponsored coverage. Many of our groups (clients) are able to save enough in premiums to set aside the ENTIRE deductible in HSA accounts for their employees as a BENEFIT. What a concept! Lower premiums, 100% coverage for the employees AND a savings account that they can keep and grow year after year tax free if they use the money wisely.

On the other hand, I think the ultimate solution would be to have a guaranteed issue gov't sponsored catastrophic plan with preventive care and BAN employer-sponsored coverage altogether, but encourage employers to REPLACE their health plans with tax advantaged HRAs (health reimbursement arrangements) or HSAs (health savings accounts) as a BENEFIT that employees could use towards their premiums, deductible or medical expenses as they wish. At the same time, allow private carriers to sell "buy-up" plans for anyone who wants one.

A plan like that could save employers millions, encourage smarter usage of healthcare dollars, bring back some sense of the cost of healthcare to employees, and still potentially give people Cadillac coverage, if they work for a company that fully funds their deductible in an HRA or HSA.

The overall concept should help flatten healthcare inflation, which would eventually lead to more people being able to obtain coverage on their own at an affordable price.
Your program does make sense except for on thing. That is cost control. Insurance companies and the government to a lesser extent (Medicare) have been unable to control costs. Medical care costs are climbing at 8 to 10% a year. Individuals and businesses can not continue to have such high annual increases in health care costs.
__________________
Freein05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 06:33 AM   #131
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 860
I'm suggesting cost control through market forces. How would you like to do it? In making consumers more responsible for their healthcare dollar expenditures by making sure that they have at least some out of pocket responsibility through deductibles while at the same time allowing them to receive company benes towards their deductible and giving them the control to spend that money as they wish should help flatten inflation.
__________________
mykidslovedogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 06:35 AM   #132
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wildcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lou-evil
Posts: 2,025
My view on this has been influenced by own situation. When I finished up graduate school I was w/o health insurance despite trying to obtain coverage. I have a pre-existing condition - mitral valve prolapse - that kept me from getting any afforable coverage. I knew what it was like to be "locked out" of the system.

Being on the other side of the equation, I can certainly empathize with people who can't get coverage and I absolutely think we need to implement some sort of universal coverage. Our healthcare is incredible - one of the best in the world - IF you have the bucks to pay for it.

To me, that's not right and it isn't right to take the high road. I don't really don't care to hear others talk about taxes going up either. We are spending an unbelievable amount of money on a war -- one we are not sure will produce any favorable results -- yet we can't come up with the money for a basic human need? With the deficit I think it is pretty safe to assume our taxes are going up no matter what. I just wish we could have spent the money on taking care of our first. I am a pretty politically neutral person and I am not here to promote political ideals. I do, however, believe in doing the right thing for the greatest good and in this case I do believe in some form of universal care.
__________________
"These walls are kind of funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them"
wildcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 06:50 AM   #133
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 860
Free in '05...This is a follow up to the prior post that I submitted before finishing...In making consumers more responsible for their healthcare dollar expenditures by making sure that they have at least some out of pocket responsibility through deductibles while at the same time allowing them to receive company benes towards their deductible and giving them the control to spend that money as they wish (or keep if they don't use it) should help flatten inflation. (IMO costs are out of control, in-part, largely because people have been so divorced from the cost of their care for so very many years.)

There could still be some programs in place for poor people who can't afford their deductibles available to people on a sliding scale based on income and need. The dollars, IMO, should only be handed out on an as-needed basis though.

Maybe the gov't could even implement some kind of "tax credit" incentive program that anyone could have access to to receive "credits" towards their catastrophic deductible if they show that they are living a healthy lifestyle by joining an exercise facility or stop-smoking program or drug-rehab program, etc. There should be a certain amount of deductible that people must be forced to be responsible for if they choose to smoke or abuse drugs or alcohol that will not be reimbursed, even if they are poor. (theory - if they can afford to spend money on smoking, drugs, and alcohol, than certainly, they can be responsible for a good hunk of their deductible, too!)

The theory is that there is a baseline plan available to all that requires some out-of-pocket responsibility, but consumers would be allowed to buy-up if they wanted to (all through private carriers). The buy-up options would require medical underwriting, just like any other plans.

Your're going to be better able to control costs by utilizing market forces than you would if the gov't created an unlimited "free healthcare for all plan". That's when costs would really soar out of control, and once that happens, then queues will form as money runs out. (just like in Canada).
__________________
mykidslovedogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 06:55 AM   #134
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
My view on this has been influenced by own situation. When I finished up graduate school I was w/o health insurance despite trying to obtain coverage. I have a pre-existing condition - mitral valve prolapse - that kept me from getting any afforable coverage. I knew what it was like to be "locked out" of the system.
That's interesting...in Colorado, Mitral Valve Prolapse never results in a decline in the individual market. Did you try with more than one carrier? I've placed lots of clients who have that condition.
__________________
mykidslovedogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 07:01 AM   #135
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wildcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lou-evil
Posts: 2,025
Yeah, I did but it was either declined or outrageously expensive -- for an otherwise healthy person. Personally, I could not afford an expensive policy coming out of grad school with plenty of student loan debt on top of regular expenses. I got coverage when I got a job but I had to go without it for a period of time.
__________________
"These walls are kind of funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them"
wildcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 07:09 AM   #136
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
Yeah, I did but it was either declined or outrageously expensive -- for an otherwise healthy person. Personally, I could not afford an expensive policy coming out of grad school with plenty of student loan debt on top of regular expenses. I got coverage when I got a job but I had to go without it for a period of time.
Yea, but nowadays, they don't even rate up for Mitral Valve Prolapse. (at least in CO.) Have to checked into it lately? Underwriting guidelines have really changed a lot over the years as treatments have changed and as carriers have begun to better understand risks. For example, Humana is now accepting asthmatics on plans with 2500 or higher deductibles with NO riders or rate-ups!
__________________
mykidslovedogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 10:20 AM   #137
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs View Post
I'm suggesting cost control through market forces. How would you like to do it? In making consumers more responsible for their healthcare dollar expenditures by making sure that they have at least some out of pocket responsibility through deductibles while at the same time allowing them to receive company benes towards their deductible and giving them the control to spend that money as they wish should help flatten inflation.
My point is if the big insurance companies with all of their negotiating power can not control costs how is an individual with little knowledge or barging experience going to negotiate better rates and control costs. I don't have dental or eye glass coverage and have tried to negotiate for better rates no deal. That is our rate take it or go someplace else. The next place will have almost the same rates. Look at fee schedules for hospitals they are basically the same. With fewer insurance companies and hospitals around health care has become a monopoly.
__________________
Freein05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 11:03 AM   #138
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wildcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lou-evil
Posts: 2,025
kidslovedogs -

This was about 3 years ago. Things may have changed since then and I do have health insurance now but it doesn't change the premise of thread --- people should have access to healthcare.
__________________
"These walls are kind of funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them"
wildcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 11:07 AM   #139
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 860
Free -

You are misguided as to why costs are so high. Insurance is expensive because HEALTHCARE is expensive. Contrary to popular belief, it's not the profits that are causing all of the inflation. Most healthcare inflation is due to high demand for high tech services combined with the willingness of people to pay for those services , cost-shifting (because of poor reimbursement levels for Medicare and Medicaid services and indigent care - IMO this is the biggest culprit!) and adverse selection - healthy people opting out of coverage because it's too expensive, and unhealthy people staying in because they need it.

Insurance companies already negotiate HUGE discounts. As a member of any insurance PPO or HMO insurance plan, you don't have to negotiate discounts for deductible expenses. You are already entitled to the insurance company's discounts - even when you have to pay a deductible expense - you cannot be balance billed if you stay in the network.

People will spend their $$ more wisely if they have some out of pocket responsibility. Right now, if you are a member of an employer sponsored HMO plan with no deductible, and your doctor orders an expensive MRI because you have some minor neck pain, you're not going to think twice about getting the MRI, because it costs you nothing. When people have to pay a deductible, they get more involved in their care. Give a catastrophic plan to everyone and they will plan for their deductibles, they will ask questions, and they will shop around, and this will help flatten inflation.

For example, when my daughter needed an ultrasound, her Dr ordered me to take her to the hospital for a $1000.00 Ultrasound test. (I called in advance to get the price.) When I called the Dr. office to ask if they knew a place where I could get a cheaper ultrasound test, he told me they had a machine in their Denver office that I could use for only a $200.00 fee. Well, you can bet I opted to drive to Denver and save the $800.00! This is the kind of behavior we will begin to see if we make people responsible for at least some of their healthcare costs.

As part of the trends towards consumer - directed healthccare (HSAs), doctors and hospitas are already beginning to working on improving price transparency so that consumers can shop around. Things are already beginning to happen. It just takes TIME!
__________________
mykidslovedogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 11:10 AM   #140
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
kidslovedogs -

This was about 3 years ago. Things may have changed since then and I do have health insurance now but it doesn't change the premise of thread --- people should have access to healthcare.
I agree - I just don't think it should be unlimited free access. I think people have got to have SOME out of pocket responsibility. I don't mind helping protect people from bankruptcy, but I don't want to give the entire country a blank check and unlimited access. The ramifications so a system like that, IMO, would be terrible. It would eventually have a negative impact on the quality of care and on the economy as a whole.
__________________

__________________
mykidslovedogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Myths of Universal Health Care OldAgePensioner Other topics 23 06-29-2006 08:31 AM
Health Care Costs BigMike Life after FIRE 39 05-21-2006 03:37 PM
Vanguard Health Care distibution LOL! FIRE and Money 2 03-11-2006 07:01 PM
Health Insurance in FIRE maddythebeagle Life after FIRE 47 08-07-2005 07:10 PM
Kerry health insurance plan questions cc Other topics 22 10-11-2004 06:27 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:17 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.