Skip to main content

I am a long time user on dKos. I fully support the goals of the ACA.

However, I finally made it all the way through Healthcare.gov and got my numbers. In my position, where I don't qualify for any subsidies, frankly I am little disappointed. The cost is higher than I was expecting here in New Hampshire.

I pasted a screen capture of my offer, for my wife and I (in our 50s with no significant health problems), below the malformed squiggly. I only show the silver plans. I'm not interested in any lower plans, and Gold is more expensive still. All plans mean I won't go bankrupt over chronic health issues (good), but are quite expensive (bad)

Please don't misunderstand, this is not an ACA attack - I am just surprised and am wondering what other peoples experience is?

EDIT: Zero subsidy

EDIT 2: I currently have employer insurance. Good benefits. My share of the cost is $450 for the two of us. I went through this exercise to see what was available to us.

EDIT 3: Not a troll. Check comment history as I am rather light on diaries. You may not like what you read, but these are numbers I just generated.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And how much is your subsidy? n/t (0+ / 0-)

    not all those who wander are lost - J.R.R. Tolkien

    by Lilith on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:48:31 AM PST

  •  why we wanted the public option, basically (6+ / 0-)

    The purpose of the public option was to drive down prices for people who didn't qualify for subsidies.

    I blame Joe Lieberman.

    •  Yes thats why its called Liebermanccare (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Ward, auapplemac, wenchacha

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:09:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  hahah (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        barbwires

        Of course if you actually paid attention at the time Lieberman supported the public option until he found out that liberals were for it.

        Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

        by Mike S on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:50:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, thats why its called Liebermancare (0+ / 0-)

          sarcasm just never comes across well in print but I'll try it again.
          To explain the sarcasm: Its really not  called Liebermancare no matter what he did or did not do, its called Obamacare. ferg was blaming Lieberman for the condition Obamacare is in.
          The person whose name is really on the ---care gets the blame/credit/responsibility. By saying it was called Liebermancare I was drawing attention  to the fact that it really is Obamacaree and he is responsible for it. One of those ironic, means-the-exact-opposite things.

          If ever I knew Lieberman did or did not support a public option I finally forgot it because in truth I do not give a flying fork about Lieberman. I do not think it's Lieberman's fault for the state Obamacare is in and if it really is, it should be named Liebermancare
          .
          Glad you laughed though

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:13:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oy. (0+ / 0-)

            I knew what you meant. I laughed at you because I coud tell you were just being a child which I guess you thought you needed to show again.

            Not to mention the fact that you appear to be clueless about how bills actually become laws and who writes them regardless of what they are named. This might help but may be above your intellect as well:

            http://

            I hope it helps but I seriously doubt it.

            Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

            by Mike S on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:55:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  You should earn less money or move (4+ / 0-)

    to a less rural state with more options*

    At least be glad that you no longer have to deal with your junk insurance.

    *These options are of course ridiculous but have both been voiced as 'solutions' multiple times on this site to people 'complaining' about the ACA. Just trying to get ahead of the curve.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:08:08 AM PST

  •  Not enough carriers in the exchanges (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, barbwires, auapplemac

    The other problem is that a lot of carriers either refused to play or are holding off to see what happens. They look at this the same way they look at new drugs/devices that are newly approved by the FDA. Many won't cover them at all at first, or put them on a second or third tier of coverage, making people try and sometimes even fail other things first before they'll agree to cover the new product.  This is, of course, because the newer products are generally more expensive.  

    Same thing with the exchanges. They fear the sick people are going to drag down their profits, so they don't want take the chance until they see who signs up and whether it makes financial sense for them.  So there isn't as much competition as their could be.  Essentially what they're saying is the fault lies with the sick people.  If only they'd "die quickly" as Alan Grayson once said.

    Yes public option would have been nice, or even more non-profit health insurance coops on the exchanges.  We can always hope for such changes down the road.

  •  The ACA is better than nothing, but not ideal. (5+ / 0-)

    For what it's worth, Here's Obama on June 30, 2003:

    I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody.
    Wacky tea party paranoia paints this as "proof" that Obama is trying to destroy is with socialism and cataclysmic, evil health care coverage, but he's a pragmatist.  As early as 2006, in the Audacity of Hope, he conceded that a market-based approach would be required as a compromise.

    The public option would have allowed the market-based system to be back by a government-funded program to ensure that yours and others health care costs would be cost-controlled.  Well - you know how that turned out? The Republicans, with a huge assist from Ben Nelson, Lieberman, and a small handful of other conservative dems, killed it.

    This is not a solution to the U.S. health care crisis, but it is a pragmatic step forward - something that any student of Obama should recognize as how he operates.  He's a staunch moderate.  

    America has moved so far right we don't even recognize it anymore.

    Howard Dean will always be my president.

    by 4democracy on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:13:58 AM PST

    •  If not enough younger/healthier people don't sign (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sucker Politics

      up, more insurance companies just might pull out of the program.

      Look, they've got to make a profit. That's the way the business is set up. Also the companies who participate have to pay out 80% of the premium intake or refund each policy hold.

      Insurance only works when there are enough people who do not use or use it minimally  to cover the people who are unhealthy.

      It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:46:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

        The simple insurance economics of the situation: The insurance companies are operating at a loss unless enough young/healthy people sign up. The insurance companies know how young/healthy people are likely to respond to Obamacare, which is why they've insisted on the mandate.

        More simple insurance economics: A lot of people have to pay for stuff they don't need, whether in the sense that it's absolutely impossible they could ever need that stuff or in the sense that the risks may be negligible enough to fail a cost-benefit analysis.

        In the end, because of the mandate and attached penalties, the insurance companies will recover their costs, but it remains to be seen how many young/healthy people are going to be pissed off in the process and what the political consequences will be for the Democratic Party. And the young/healthy aren't the only ones who stand to be pissed off.

        There's a lot of doomsaying going on among critics and a lot of handwaving going on among supporters. The battle lines are drawn, and people on both sides are committed to an outcome, even if it means putting on a show of textbook confirmation biases and textbook cognitive dissonance.

  •  We're encountering similar issues in our State... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral, Victor Ward

    We also don't qualify for any subsidies, so we're looking at Bronze plans. At least in our case, the only differences that I can see between the Bronze and Silver plans are the annual deductibles and monthly premiums.  We're opting for a higher deductible so that we have a lower monthly premium.  We've had an 'emergency fund' of savings for years that we can dip into to cover the deductible.  I wish we were younger and could qualify for a 'catastrophic' plan with an even higher deductible and lower monthly premiums.  

    We're in a major metropolitan area so we have more insurance providers, but the rural counties in our state seem to be getting screwed.  I really hope one of the things for the 'fix it' stage of the ACA will be to have insurance providers be able to sell plans across state lines and at a minimum have pricing that is not county by county.

  •  just out of curiosity... (0+ / 0-)

    ...how much would the monthly premium be for the bronze plan? Also: how much were you paying for health insurance before and for what kind of coverage?

    It's surprising that there are so few options available to you. Perhaps it's your income?

    Have you contacted an ACA navigator or any private insurers to see if there are any better options.?

  •  That doesn't seem that bad to me... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin, Gary Norton, second gen

    I'm paying $435/month for a limited plan from BC/BS as an 40 year old individual with no preexisting conditions....

    A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

    by falconer520 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:24:52 AM PST

  •  Thanks for posting. We all need to understand the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i dunno, auapplemac

    impacts so we can keep moving toward a better future.

  •  Well yeah, as David Frum (of all people) (5+ / 0-)

    pointed out ACA is comprised entirely of rehashed GOP ideas.

    So how could one NOT be at least a little bit disappointed?

  •  Think about going Bronze (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1

    I understand your pain and want Single Payor, or, at least a public option.  I'm pretty much in the same position.

    However, you should look at the bronze plans.  Why spend an extra 3-4000 a year guaranateed out of pocket to protect yourself against a possible 4000 loss?

    If you really are in good health, it might sense to pay the $150 a visit to see your doctor three times a year. Remember, all plans cover at least one physical a year/immunizations, etc.  

  •  $808 a month for two people (9+ / 0-)

    in their 50's with no health issues.  $5,000 deductible and $8,000 out of pocket max for a year is a pretty damn good plan compared to the crap out there.  That breaks down to $404 a month per person in their 50's.  

    I'm currently paying $589 for MYSELF and I'm 41.  I have a $5,000 deductible as well.  

    I don't know what insurance rates are like in NH for 50 year olds but I know in CT you would be paying well over $1,000 per person for a comparable plan prior to the ACA.  So while I can understand your disappointment, it can CERTAINLY be worse and would very likely have been were it not for the ACA.

    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

    by DisNoir36 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:39:45 AM PST

  •  Rural areas are getting hosed (0+ / 0-)

    because they have few insurers covering those territories. No competition means higher prices. Seems like NH is a state that is effectively entirely rural.

    Also isn't NH somewhat republican dominated? Wherever they have control they seem to have found ways to f**k up the exchanges by discouraging insurers or encouraging bad behavior of insurers with respect to pricing and competition.

    Some underserved areas have been lucky enough to have some new 'co-op' type insurers move in to take up the slack and provide some competition for more establishment type insurance companies.

    I hope in the out years you get some additional insurers and perhaps a co-op to cover your territory. That could cause some significant savings in the future due to competition. Remember this is just year one. Things could get better (or worse) in the future.

    But for now you are one of the 'ACA losers' unfortunately. Of course this assumes your current plan is not one of those junky plans. But I am not going to assume that and add insult to your injury.

  •  Since your last diary was a (4+ / 0-)

    presentation of a Redstate article, with zero rebuttal........

    and you have all of 49 comments to your credit........

    And you claim to be a "long-time user" here........

    UID: 323814

    Joined: Oct 27, 2011

    And if you knew anything about the ACA, then you would know that "with no significant health problems" has ZERO bearing on the price or availability of your plans.

    Add ot that, the need to add "Please don't misunderstand, this is not an ACA attack"

    Excuse me if I don't believe you're concerns are legitimate.

    I call troll.


    "The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it" - Dr. Lawrence Krauss

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:45:29 AM PST

  •  These rates are somewhat similar to those in CA (0+ / 0-)

    around the ages 55-65. WIth the out-of-pocket maximums, looks like your total spend would NEVER exceed 800*12 + 8000 = 18,000 (roughly). This is actually a SIGNIFICANT improvement over pre-ACA BC/BS rates, which were typically 1400 x 12 + 12000 = 29,000 (roughly). And, those plans had lifetime and annual maximums, which ACA removes.

    My thought process is:

    If you had preexisting conditions, so you can estimate your meds and/or physician/hospital costs, and figure you will zoom past the OOPMax, you could go get the silver or gold, which reduce your TOTAL OOP.

    If your annual requirements so far are far less, then I would go get a bronze plan.

  •  What were you paying before? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Norton, Radiowalla, poco, gramofsam1

    I ask because I was paying north of $1000/month for my coverage (two people in our 50's, good health) here in Massachusetts.

    I can get a individual plan for around $860/month, but can get an Employer+spouse Gold plan for $650, bronze for $450.

    Are you self-employed? if so, look for the employer/small business plans - they're cheaper here in Mass.

    For the record, I haven't paid under $1000/month for health insurance in many years.

  •  How does that compare with your current coverage? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus, barbwires

    Those premiums are lower than my Federal employee BCBS premiums of $1237 per month. Luckily my employer picks up 70% but the total is still $500 more than what you are quoting.

    Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

    by Gary Norton on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:49:06 AM PST

  •  I wouldn't worry (0+ / 0-)

    Your employer coverage is not about to go away.  I'm covered by my employer too, but if I wasn't I would be in the same boat as you.

    When the United States becomes a low wage country, only bobbleheads shall go forth from American soil.

    by amyzex on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:41:41 PM PST

  •  I was reading another diary, comment about NH (0+ / 0-)

    mentioned that there really isn't choice in that state and that the plans don't cover all the hospitals. It sounds like either the insurance companies or the state government or both don't really give a fig.

  •  California (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i dunno, poco, housesella, ferg, mbradshawlong

    We got the platinum:  Both 62 with health problems.  $1958. a month, we won't get subsidies.  $200 more than we pay now, but without the $5000 deductible and the high co-pays and RX pay.  We are happy!,  no ridiculous health questions.  It's good, although I do admit I'm a life-time hater of health insurance companies money grubbing bastards.

  •  So, basically, what you're saying is, You like (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, bluesteel

    your plan, so you want to keep it?

    I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

    by second gen on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:07:27 PM PST

    •  yeah I don't get it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen
      •  I don't see anything wrong with seeing if (4+ / 0-)

        they can get a better deal, but the deal they're currently getting sounds pretty decent. I'm paying more than the diarist, and I qualify for the subsidy at less than 200% FPL, so, I guess it's about perspective.

        I will be shopping. I like my insurance, but I can't use it. After paying the premium, I have no more to pay copays and deductibles. I will save money on the ACA

        I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

        by second gen on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:26:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, didn't finish my comment. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, Glen The Plumber, gramofsam1

          I get checking for a better deal, but when their current deal is pretty decent, why make a complaining diary that they didn't get an even better deal?

          I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

          by second gen on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:27:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I was comparing on-exchange plans (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auapplemac

        to see how they compared with employer plans

        •  That's great and all. But you found it (0+ / 0-)

          wouldn't help you. Why make a diary complaining that it won't help you out of your already affordable healthcare plan?

          I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

          by second gen on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:51:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You do understand that your employer SUBSIDIZES (3+ / 0-)

          your health plan, right? Of course the unsubsidized exchange plan will compare poorly with your employer SUBSIDIZED plan.  Obamacare is supposed to be a solution for people who are not currently covered by their employers. You are covered by your employer. Therefore you have no need for Obamacare. And your comparison is an apples ad oranges comparison.

  •  What's your employers share of the cost? (10+ / 0-)
    EDIT 2: I currently have employer insurance. Good benefits. My share of the cost is $450 for the two of us. I went through this exercise to see what was available to us.
  •  Oh good f'ing grief (5+ / 0-)

    Nothing is available to you because you have employer based insurance. Now  if you add in you employer's contribution to you current health insurance it probably equals or exceeds what you would pay as an individual.

    Talk about concerning trolling.

    If you are against sane gun regulations then by definition you support 30,000 deaths a year by firearms.

    by jsfox on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:36:24 PM PST

    •  This! (6+ / 0-)

      I'm getting really tired of people 'in their 50's' who don't understand that what they are paying for an employer-provided plan is NOT the actual cost of their health insurance.  It's considerably more - a cost that is hidden or not important to people espousing how terrible ACA is.  

      And let's be clear,  that employer giving decent coverage:  if it costs him a lot more to make widgets next year or ship them from China, or whatever they need to pay their CEO - your health insurance becomes one of many business decisions that has NOTHING to do with your health.  

      There are two considerations under ACA (in addition to the 'states' rights b.s. that is causing all the hand-wringing):  tobacco use and age.  I'm 63 years old, self-employed uninsurable AT ANY COST before ACA.  God knows what's going on with my health - I've paid for my asthma and high blood pressure out of pocket for my entire time in the private market - 30+ years.  I had insurance and I had to accept crappier and crappier plans at higher and higher rates until it became impossible.  

      I will qualify for a subsidy and my insurance in IL for a decent silver plan will be about $400/month or about $550 for a Gold plan.  Without subsidies these plans were in the $800-$900 range.  It's a lot.  But will people please remember that ACA is not apples to apples with employer plans.  It is meant for people like me who have been unable to get insurance and are THRILLED to not have to document every sniffle I had in 1984, just to be rejected yet again.  

      This diary is not helpful.  Not without qualifying the fact that NH doesn't have the competition that other that other states have.  This is the fault of Republicans and DINO's who weakened this law.  But i'st still a damn sight better than what we've had which is NOTHING.  

      The diarist should understand that the $450 they pay is a fraction of the actual cost of the plan.  

      •  The diary is helpful (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, gramofsam1

        I agree with many of your points 57andFemale.  But, if certain misconceptions are not exposed and debunked they will linger.  

        I'm getting really tired of people 'in their 50's' who don't understand that what they are paying for an employer-provided plan is NOT the actual cost of their health insurance.  
        The amount of ignorance on this issue is astounding.  But it needs to be exposed and discussed for people to start getting it.  It's complicated.  

        And most people in this country could not tell you what they pay in social security tax or their federal tax rate so the confusion about the true cost of their employer provided insurance is to be expected.

  •  Perfectly normal reaction (7+ / 0-)

    ACA is not designed to save you (and others in your position) money.

    You have a good income (based on no subsidy) and have employer provided insurance.  The rate quoted is a good rate.

    However, if you and your spouse were to lose your jobs but keep your income (become self-employed or new job without insurance, say) then you would still have insurance available at a good rate.  Even after COBRA expires (and before if you wanted).

    Also, after COBRA expires  (and before if you wanted), you would be able to get the good rate even with significant pre-existing conditions.

    And, if losing you jobs also meant losing all or most of your income THEN you would really need help and the help would be available in the form of subsidies.

  •  UPDATE this diary again, please (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, mbradshawlong

    I've been thinking about this since we commented back and forth.

    You went in there and were disappointed, but you had nothing to compare what you saw against. You erroneously compared what you there against your employer-furnished insurance co-pay.

    The individual/small business insurance market is NOT the bigger employer market. We do not get, and never have gotten, the breaks on premiums and special deals offered to larger organizations.

    Until Obamacare, I was terrified that if I got sick, I'd get dropped from my insurance - another common experience for people not supported by a large group.

    Your diary should be instructive to anyone who has always gotten insurance form their employer - instructive as yet another reason Obamacare was so badly needed.

  •  People like you never pay the real cost of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mbradshawlong

    health insurance premiums, your employer does.  You get a subsidy from your employer which your employer then writes off, so one way or t'other someone else is footing the bill for the actual cost of your "private employers" health care.  

    Then folks like you who get employer subsidized health care benefits complain about your compensation without adding to your total compensation (wages and benefits) the actual cost to your employer of hiring you (you'd find out you're getting thousands more dollars each year in annual total compensation).  If you had to pay your actual health care premiums out of your own wages, you would walk right over to your HR department and kiss the feet of your benefits group or choose ACA.  

    And for the record, I worked in HR for many years and am fully aware of the actual cost to employers of FTEs (full-time equivalents).  There has always been a group within the HR field that would eliminate or vastly reduce the subsidies employers pay for employee health care costs to MAKE employee realize how lucky you are, and force employees to make better lifestyle choices - if you had to pay for it yourself, you'd think twice.  

    Personally, I think businesses should get out of the insurance subsidy business - it reduces our bottom line and gives an unfair advantage to corporations or organizations that reside in nationalized or single payer health care countries.  

    It makes better business competitive sense for us to have single payer nationalized health care, and get private corporations out of the health care insurance subsidy business completely.  Business that have to compete overseas should support a single payer system, without question.

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:03:56 PM PST

  •  Your actual cost for insurance is $2250 month (0+ / 0-)

    based on your stated rate of $450 for two, with the assumption of the average employer subsidy of 1+1 at 80%, the actual cost of your current coverage is approximately $2250 per month.  This is the true cost for your coverage.  

    That you can get similar coverage under ACA for almost a third of that actual cost is....a DEAL!  

    If I were you, I'd do a little research on the actual cost to your employer of covering you and your wife.  You'd be kissing your boss, and thanking him/her for the sweet deal, and vowing never to complain about your wages and benefits ever ever ever again.

    You get over $20K in employer subsidies each year!

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:14:05 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site