Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:22 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Obamacare “victim” now says loss of previous health plan may be “a blessing in disguise” Back to Topics
RNorm

Champion Author
San Bernardino

Posts:53,460
Points:1,305,255
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 6:33:41 PM

"Because her $54 per month plan was cancelled due to Obamacare’s new higher requirements — and because her insurance company’s recommended replacement would cost her nearly 10 times as much — Dianne Barrette became the face of Obamacare’s so-called victims.

But in a new report from the New Republic, Barrette, after factoring in her tax credits and going through her options with reporter Jonathan Cohn, is now singing Obamacare’s praises, even going so far as to say her previous plan’s cancellation was “maybe” a “blessing in disguise.”

When Cohn detailed for Barrette how much she’d be paying for far more comprehensive health insurance, Barrette told him she’d “jump at” the chance to secure the plan. “With my age, things can happen,” she said. “I don’t want to have bills that could make me bankrupt. I don’t want to lose my house.”

***

OK, but what can she get from Obamacare? Using plan data provided to me by the Kaiser Family Foundation, residents of Polk County, Florida have dozens of insurance options from which to choose. The cheapest option for somebody of Barrette’s age has premiums of $440 a month, the most expensive goes for $914 a month. But Barrette wouldn’t pay those prices. Obamacare offers tax credits to people with incomes of up to four times the poverty line, or about $45,000 for an individual. Given Barrette’s income, she’ll be getting a tax credit worth nearly $331 a month, according to the Kaiser Foundation’s subsidy calculator. And that tax credit works like a discount, upfront. To figure out what she’d pay, you subtract the value of the tax credit from the price of the plan.

Accounting for that discount, it looks like the cheapest plan available her would cost about $100 a month—in other words, about $50 a month more than Barrette pays now. Obamacare divides plans into categories based on generosity—with platinum the most generous, bronze the least generous. This is a bronze plan and you can tell by reading the benefit summary. It covers periodic wellness visits for free, like all plans must under the new law. But it doesn’t pay for virtually anything else until the beneficiary has paid $6,250 of his or her own money, the maximum out-of-pocket allowed under Obamacare. The plan might protect Barrette from bankruptcy, something her current plan doesn’t do, but it would do almost nothing to insulate her from less extreme medical expenses."



Sometimes, maybe its best to check the facts for yourself, rather than believe the hype?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
KnoxGasPriceSpy
Champion Author Knoxville

Posts:154,600
Points:1,569,595
Joined:Oct 2010
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2013 8:19:11 PM

can no one see that the ACA is nothing more than corporate welfare for the insurance companies ..?
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,780
Points:2,076,755
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2013 6:47:21 AM

From theTower's link: >“We believe that the Act is good for health care, the economy, & the future of our nation. However, ACA options for middle income individuals ages 59 & 60 are unaffordable. We’re learning that many others are similarly affected. In that spirit we ask that you fix this, for all of our sakes,” he and Brothers wrote.<

Ah, so a couple of "loyal Obozo supporters" get bitten badly by ObozoCare but STILL believe that they somehow got accidentally bitten? It wasn't supposed to affect THEM, just all the OTHER people, particularly those richer then themselves.

Let's throw a pity party for the stupid couple!

In other related news, another person who voted for Obozo finds that his messiah's brainchild is really a brain fart! Bill Elliot, a cancer victim determined that it would be better for his family for the disease to "just take its course" rather than expending their savings on his skyrocketing cost of healthcare.

Obozo says "no problem...he'll still be voting for Democrats, even long after he's dead".
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,800
Points:140,690
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 11:24:36 PM

What this thread really is saying:

all is well
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,327
Points:325,425
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 5:12:08 PM

Anthem Blue Cross is sued over policy cancellations


In separate lawsuits filed Monday, Paul Simon, 39, of Sherman Oaks and Catherine Coker, 63, of Glendale sought to pin some of the blame on Anthem Blue Cross, a unit of WellPoint Inc.

The two plaintiffs are asking the courts to block any policy cancellations unless Anthem customers are allowed to switch back to their previous grandfathered health plans.

In their Los Angeles County Superior Court suits, Simon and Coker allege that Anthem pressured them in 2011 to give up their grandfathered status, a position that would have shielded them from changes under the healthcare law.

People who bought their individual policy before March 2010, when the healthcare law was enacted, and kept it in place aren't affected by the current changes in the market. In California, nearly half of the 2 million individual policyholders are expected to lose their current coverage and must find a new plan by Jan. 1.

"This is about an insurance company manipulating the situation and concealing the facts," said William Shernoff, a Claremont attorney for both plaintiffs. "We are asking the court to give our clients and everybody else in the same situation the option of going back to their grandfathered policies."



Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,460
Points:1,305,255
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 11:17:51 AM

"--Not 39%, and certainly not due to a litany of new mandates and requirements under new ObamaCare© laws. "


Um, you're wrong once again:

"Internal documents show one of the country's largest for-profit health insurers, in an effort to maintain profits, manipulated data to justify a rate increase on individual premiums in California this year by as much as 39 percent.

At a closely watched Congressional hearing Wednesday, Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, blasted WellPoint Inc. executives for publicly stating that the country's economic turmoil and rising health care costs was the reason its Anthem Blue Cross subsidiary intended to move forward with a massive rate increase in California when the company's own documents say otherwise. Waxman said the company "may have manipulated its actuarial assumptions to keep its medical loss ratio (MLR), a key measure reviewed by California regulators, 'flat.'"

"WellPoint says the rate increases are a result of medical inflation and healthier policyholders dropping coverage," Waxman (D-California) said. "But the thousands of pages of WellPoint documents we have reviewed tell another story ... WellPoint says that its rate increases have nothing to do with increasing company profits. But an internal company e-mail says that its rate increase would 'return CA to target profit of 7 percent.'"

The email Waxman referred to was sent October 7, 2009, by WellPoint executive Barry Shane to Cynthia Miller, the company's executive vice president, chief actuary and integration management officer. It says:


Re CA rate filing ... I will try to keep you better informed re: key increases. Average increase is 23 percent and is intended to return CA to target profit of 7 percent (vs 5 percent this year). Still have another 1-2 weeks of discussion before we get finalized. Also, this has been a collaborative rate development process [with another executive] and his team fully engaged and encouraging a higher rate increase (while being aware of the risk associated).

Last month, it was revealed that Anthem Blue Cross notified thousands of its 800,000 customers in California who hold individual plans that they would be affected by a rate hike as of March 1. The increase has been delayed by two months pending an independent review launched two weeks ago at the behest of California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.

Poizner, a GOP gubernatorial candidate, said he "instructed" an outside actuary "to review the rates with a fine-tooth comb" to determine if the rate hikes are excessive and ensure that Anthem Blue Cross is spending 70 cents of every dollar on premium medical care as required by state law.

If the actuary finds "that these rate increases were unwarranted, I will immediately take action to get Anthem Blue Cross to follow the law and lower their rates," he said.

When news of the rate hike broke, it resulted in a major backlash against the health insurer and underscored the urgency of passing legislation to reform the industry."



Again, these rate hikes were set in motion in 2009, even BEFORE Obamacare became law...








"Or are you going to realize the new laws created THAT situation?"

Or are you going to realize that insurers are just using the law to justify rate hikes that they were doing and planning anyway?????? I doubt it becase you don't like admitting when you're wrong and you have the hatred of anything related to Obama to the bone.

[Edited by: RNorm at 11/8/2013 11:19:28 AM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,314
Points:2,356,185
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 10:23:10 AM

Norm: <<<"LOL, but they were raising premiums even BEFORE Obamacare existed.">>>

--Not 39%, and certainly not due to a litany of new mandates and requirements under new ObamaCare© laws. Taxes on the middle class have been always going up year after year, and some will see some incredible increases when they can't afford health insurance and pay the fine when ObamaCare© law starts affecting their taxes too. Is your reasoning going to be for those people the same? Or are you going to realize the new laws created THAT situation? My money is that you actually won't care, you have yours, and you'll have the back of your fellow democrats to the bone.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 10:04:31 AM

"LOL, but they were raising premiums even BEFORE Obamacare existed."

All it takes is the a threat to make things go up. Look at how gas prices rise with a storm moving into the Gulf of Mexico...before it even does any damage or anyone has to shut down production.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,593
Points:1,542,400
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 9:25:07 AM

So 19 people pay extra so 1 can skate by paying less.
Progressive Liberal in a nut shell.

We are not saying that the Medical insurance industry did not need to change their ways in dropping per-existing conditions.
Obamacare is not the answer. It puts a tourniquet on the medical system & controls the money that flows thru it.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,460
Points:1,305,255
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 2:07:07 PM

"--ObamaCare© "


LOL, but they were raising premiums even BEFORE Obamacare existed.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,314
Points:2,356,185
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 2:04:10 PM

Norm: <<<"Why does Anthem Blue Cross need a 39% premium increase?">>>

--ObamaCare©
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,460
Points:1,305,255
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 1:52:11 PM

"Somehow raising costs for the consumer is good according to you and yet you are knocking rising prices while defending the increase in out of pocket spending for a high percentage of current policy holders. Am I the only one that sees how back-assward this is?"


But how different is that from the insurance companies raising premiums by ridiculous percentages on healthy people that weren't even getting sick?

That was happening in large numbers and none of the people complaining now said diddly squat about the insurance companies doing what you're complaining about now:

"California’s largest for-profit health insurer is moving to dramatically raise rates for customers with individual policies, setting off a furor among policyholders and prompting state insurance regulators to investigate.

Anthem Blue Cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage — people not covered by group rates — that its prices will go up March 1 and may be adjusted “more frequently” than its typical yearly increases.

The insurer declined to say how high it is increasing rates. But brokers who sell these policies say they are fielding numerous calls from customers incensed over premium increases of 30% to 39%, saying they come on the heels of similar jumps last year.

Insurers are free to cherry-pick the healthiest customers in the lightly regulated individual market. They can raise rates at any time as long as they notify the state Department of Insurance and prove that they are spending at least 70% of premiums on medical care.

Many policyholders say the rate hikes are the largest they can remember, and they fear that subsequent premium growth will narrow their options — leaving them to buy policies with higher deductibles and less coverage or putting health insurance out of reach altogether."



Why does Anthem Blue Cross need a 39% premium increase?

[Edited by: RNorm at 11/6/2013 1:55:01 PM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,314
Points:2,356,185
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 1:45:00 PM

From Tower's Link: <<<"I asked Hammack to send me details of his current plan. It carried a $4,000 deductible per person, a $40 copay for doctor visits, a $150 emergency room visit fee and 30 percent coinsurance for hospital stays after the deductible. The out-of-pocket maximum was $5,600.

This plan was ending, Kaiser’s letters told them, because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. “Everything is taken care of,” the letters said. “There’s nothing you need to do.”

The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year).

And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.">>>

--Yes, another party like millions of others, that are judged to be "rich" and/or carrying substandard insurance policies, living Obama's lies... Thanks ObamaCare©!
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 1:31:39 PM

"Do you think it is desireable that our nation eventually has health care which only the 1% can afford? Because that's where it was headed without the PPACA."

The majority of people currently enrolled in a plan that is being cancelled is seeing a huge increase in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, yet that is desirable? Somehow raising costs for the consumer is good according to you and yet you are knocking rising prices while defending the increase in out of pocket spending for a high percentage of current policy holders. Am I the only one that sees how back-assward this is?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 1:28:58 PM

"I thought one of the primary reasons was to stop insurance companies from dropping you if you got sick (then you end up broke because of a medical illness) or refusing coverage if you had a pre-existing condition? "

If that were the case the law would not be so complicated and affect so many people that already had insurance.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,626
Points:598,000
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 1:14:27 PM

You got what you voted for you dope.

Funniest part of this story is these Obama supporters contacted Nancy Pelosi for help.
The not so funny part is these people already have it figured out.
Make less money, get insurance paid for.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,560
Points:449,405
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 12:49:18 PM

It's either we pay for those who can not or they go without.

Health care is barely affordable for the middle class at this point.

It would be foolish to think the costs will not continue to rise.

And what will you say when even the middle class can not afford it and it is only available to the elite?

Then become elite or die?

Do you think it is desireable that our nation eventually has health care which only the 1% can afford? Because that's where it was headed without the PPACA.

Then the cries would go from: 'Oh. I have to pay more. Boo hoo. Liar!' to 'Make the rich pay more so I don't have to die! Thank you for an equitable system...'
Profile Pic
modeshoo825
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:2,567
Points:51,720
Joined:Sep 2007
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 12:41:31 PM

"I'll be the first to call the woman's plan a piece of rubbish, but a lot of us (including myself) are loosing good plans, and being forced to buy other plans with less benefit at dramatically increased costs."

My family of four will be paying 80% more next year to subsidize Ms. Barrette's plan and for a plan inferior to the one we had, liked, and wanted to keep, but can't because of 0bamacare.

"I thought one of the primary reasons was to stop insurance companies from dropping you if you got sick (then you end up broke because of a medical illness) or refusing coverage if you had a pre-existing condition?"

At a considerably higher cost to the young, the healthy and those who actually pay taxes.

From the OP: "To figure out what (someone else is paying on Ms. Barrett's behalf), you subtract the value of the tax credit from the price of (her) plan."

"She comes out better and 19 other people come out worse to pay for her to have it better and somehow in the liberal mind this is not only BETTER for our country but it is even fair!" - Bingo and BOOM!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,560
Points:449,405
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 12:34:46 PM

"I still recall the law school poster babe with her hand out demanding her free birth control so she could continue her slothful lifestyle"

--As if being honest with human nature is a crime.

I bet there are a lot of very messed up people who think for one reaosn or another they are not allowed to have sex. Does the term 'uptight' come to mind?

And what is your solution to the problem of cross-generational government dependence. Abstinance? (which is always followed by upticks in the number of teens performing oral and anal...) because, you know, that's not really having sex.



[Edited by: SemiSteve at 11/6/2013 12:38:19 PM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,460
Points:1,305,255
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 12:26:29 PM

"If providing health care to the indigent was truly the purpose of this law, they would have focused on providing health care to the indigent. "


I thought one of the primary reasons was to stop insurance companies from dropping you if you got sick (then you end up broke because of a medical illness) or refusing coverage if you had a pre-existing condition?
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,314
Points:2,356,185
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 12:09:23 PM

I'll be the first to call the woman's plan a piece of rubbish, but a lot of us (including myself) are loosing good plans, and being forced to buy other plans with less benefit at dramatically increased costs. The answer to health insurance reform is not for the government to get into the insurance broker business, but rather for the consumer to become more educated, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and lowering medical care costs.

The government has enough problems on its plate without absorbing people's personal responsibilities too. If providing health care to the indigent was truly the purpose of this law, they would have focused on providing health care to the indigent.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 11:58:08 AM

"Well. Imagine that. She's coming out much better than before."

Liberal logic again...

She comes out better and 19 other people come out worse to pay for her to have it better and somehow in the liberal mind this is not only BETTER for our country but it is even fair!
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 11:56:27 AM

Someone already said it but who doesn't like free cheese? If someone bought me a car right now I would not care how much it costs as long as I wasn't paying for it!
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,460
Points:1,305,255
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 12:32:41 AM

"She likes it because someone else is paying for her insurance now."


But just last week, conservatives far and wide were applauding her for her vocal opposition to Obamacare. But now that she can benefit, its a "blessing in disguise" and you don't see her being invited on Fox News...

Um, ok.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,703
Points:1,284,150
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 12:24:42 AM

This is one example of the problem I have with Obamacare. Millions of people will qualify for billions of dollars in subsidies. Just who is going to pay for this? She likes it because someone else is paying for her insurance now.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,460
Points:1,305,255
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 12:04:56 AM

"Facts?? from a known left wing socialist one sided liberal rag like the New Republic? what a joke."


Yeah, interesting that the LA Times and Consumer Reports came up with the same figures.

Must be a vast, left-wing conspiracy no doubt.
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,106
Points:2,117,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 11:53:13 PM

"Sometimes, maybe its best to check the facts for yourself, rather than believe the hype?"

.....

Facts?? from a known left wing socialist one sided liberal rag like the New Republic? what a joke.

Always curious whenever I see the latest poster child the anointed one or one of his lackeys presents as living testament to their cause...hmmmmm, one of the 47% or a woeful member of the disenfranchised or simply a welfare freeloader?

I still recall the law school poster babe with her hand out demanding her free birth control so she could continue her slothful lifestyle...what a pride to her parents she must be.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,560
Points:449,405
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 11:19:51 PM

Well. Imagine that. She's coming out much better than before.

Looks like the PPACA works after all.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,460
Points:1,305,255
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 10:29:48 PM

"Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

Consumer Report's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.


Junk Insurance vs. Real Insurance....yeah, snake eyes...
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,314
Points:2,356,185
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 10:06:52 PM

Did some more digging, my earlier post is incorrect, I found that her stated income is $30K a year, not the $45K I earlier figured...

Ran her numbers in the Kaiser calculator, looks like she could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:
$265 per year ($22 per month)
(which covers 10% of the overall premium)

Data Used:
Florida 33803 zip code
$30,000 annual income 2014 dollars
non-smoker
1 adult household over 21, no children
No employer coverage available

Old premium $54/month
New premium including $22/month subsidy=$209 based on silver plan, $161 on bronze.

Snake eyes!



[Edited by: EZExit at 11/5/2013 10:10:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,657
Points:2,866,205
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 9:51:54 PM

Her old plan probably didn't cover birth control or abortions so it was cancelled.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,314
Points:2,356,185
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 9:44:07 PM

<<<"For an additional $50 or so, Barrette could apparently get the second-cheapest silver plan. It’s from FloridaBlue, the same company that provides Barrette with what she has now.">>>

--Yeah, double the costs for the same thing, a blessing indeed! Perhaps she'll luck out and go for broke with a doubling in costs yet again next year, she can only hope. Unfortunately, the story is nevertheless a bust...

Ran her numbers in the Kaiser calculator, looks like she could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:
$0 per year
(which covers 0% of the overall premium)

Data Used:
Florida
$45,000 annual income 2014 dollars
non-smoker
1 adult household over 21, no children
No employer coverage available

I hate when a salon story washes up snake eyes :)
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,327
Points:325,425
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 7:18:17 PM

$54 per month health insurance? Did this woman actually believe that policy was worth anything?

I wonder how many complainers here bothered to look at what their current policy covers and what the deductibles are before bellyaching.

Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,460
Points:1,305,255
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 6:58:05 PM

And this woman was on Hannity during the week of the rollout blasting Obamacare and never even bothered to look at her options...

SMH
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,988
Points:2,246,065
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 6:45:29 PM

Norm, facts and the right don't mix.....
Post a reply Back to Topics