Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Big Firms Overhaul Health Coverage [Giving money to employees to buy own coverage]
Wall Street Journal ^ | 26 September 2012 | Anna Wilde Mathews

Posted on 09/28/2012 8:24:43 AM PDT by Lorianne

Two big employers are planning a radical change in the way they provide health benefits to their workers, giving employees a fixed sum of money and allowing them to choose their medical coverage and insurer from an online marketplace.

Sears Holdings Corp. and Darden Restaurants Inc. say the change isn't designed to make workers pay a higher share of health-coverage costs. Instead they say it is supposed to put more control over health benefits in the hands of employees.

The approach will be closely watched by firms around the U.S. If it eventually takes hold widely, it might parallel the transition from company-provided pensions to 401(k) retirement-savings plans controlled by workers and funded partly by employer contributions. For employees, the concern will be that they could end up more directly exposed to the upward march of health costs.

"It's a fundamental change…the employer is saying, 'Here's a pot of money, go shop,' " said Paul Fronstin, director of health research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit. The worry for employees is that "the money may not be sufficient and it may not keep up with premium inflation."

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: darden; obamacare; obamacarekills; sears
This might turn out to be the for the best. People will have to shop around for insurance (and care). This should create competition ! (If the government doesn't make competition illegal).
1 posted on 09/28/2012 8:24:45 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Of course that extra income will be taxable.

Will wipe out the current advantage of contributions to 401K’s and health plans being paid for with pre-tax income.


2 posted on 09/28/2012 8:30:25 AM PDT by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"People will have to shop around for insurance (and care)."

True. And they will be less likely to abuse it [ex: going to the E.R. for the flu].
The line about "the change isn't designed to make workers pay a higher share of health-coverage costs" is pure B.S.. That JUST what it is. It probably exempts the companies from all kinds of crap under ObamaCare.

The Kenyan must go.

3 posted on 09/28/2012 8:30:42 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

This is the way it should be. Employer paid benefits started as a way to get around government wage limits.

Start with “this money is for your insurance’ and eventually it becomes obvious that it is all part of wages anyway. And we get back to normal, and as you point out, a step closer to the consumer being in charge of shopping for what he consumes.


4 posted on 09/28/2012 8:30:45 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catman67

A good argument for real HSAs.


5 posted on 09/28/2012 8:32:25 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
A nice system for young people willing to take a risk is buy a catastrophic police ($40,000 deductible) for a third of the normal price of health insurance. Every month put another third of the usual price in a savings account for medical needs (regular account) and a third in your pocket.

In the event of cancer or something serious, you'll be covered and able to get into a hospital. An extra $40,000 in life insurance covers the excess for the family... Had a family member do this years ago.

6 posted on 09/28/2012 8:37:29 AM PDT by GOPJ (You only establish a feel for the line by having crossed it. - - Freeper One Name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
This might turn out to be the for the best. People will have to shop around for insurance (and care).

I agree. If republicans had proposed having individuals pay for their own health care, which many have, in order to control costs, they would be vilified. We need to dump Obamacare, and people should just buy medical savings accounts.

7 posted on 09/28/2012 8:37:41 AM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
A nice system for young people willing to take a risk is buy a catastrophic policy ($40,000 deductible)
8 posted on 09/28/2012 8:40:08 AM PDT by GOPJ (You only establish a feel for the line by having crossed it. - - Freeper One Name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
This might turn out to be the for the best. People will have to shop around for insurance (and care).

You're missing the obvious change wrought by Obamacare - guaranteed issue with no pre-existing condition clause. What that means is that only idiots will use their extra money to buy health insurance - why would they, when they can just buy it the night before the operation? Of course, that will leave only the sick with health insurance, which means premiums will skyrocket. Eventually, we all wind up where Obama wants us - in line for our single-payor health "benefits", if the death panel permits it.

Welcome to 1984, comrade.

9 posted on 09/28/2012 8:41:03 AM PDT by TonyInOhio (No representation without respiration!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

makes good sense


10 posted on 09/28/2012 8:42:39 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
A nice system for young people willing to take a risk is buy a catastrophic policy ($40,000 deductible)

Once Obamacare is fully implemented, high deductible policies will no longer be permitted. HSAs will also be phased out.

11 posted on 09/28/2012 8:43:40 AM PDT by TonyInOhio (No representation without respiration!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

I have thought for some time that it’s not good for your insurance to be tied to your job, especially in my case where I was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes after hiring my current job. I have been concerned about how changing jobs would affect my coverage. It would open up competitive rates and my job coverage sucks anyway. I pay $51.00 per pay period, and I have to meet the 1500 person deductable before they cover any coverage except pharmaceuticals and drugs. So, basically, I am on a catastraphic coverage only but they (our company) seem to think its such a great plan. I am hoping for a Romney win so jobs will start returning and maybe I can jump off this wagon and go to a better option.


12 posted on 09/28/2012 8:44:06 AM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10
Forgot this in the prior post:

60% of firms to kill health insurance, charge more under Obamacare

The Kenyan must go.

13 posted on 09/28/2012 8:48:22 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Won’t help much as the price of individual policies is skyrocketing due to mandated changes in the risk pool, i.e., no pre-existing condition(s) exclusion(s).

Real culprit IMHO for high health care costs? I did data work for the MEDICAID agency here in IL for years. When I started the cost of an office visit was around $20 and nobody needed insurance to cover that. Insurance covered major medical only.

But Medicare, and by extension due to Federal regulations, MEDICAID capped physician payments for decades at around $8.20. That payment wasn’t enough to cover their cost of doing business especially with rising malpractice insurance costs. So, inevitably, and in a stealth ‘tax’ the cost of office visits began to creep and then went ballistic to around $160 here in Springfield. The person not on the government programs is taxed for the minimal payment by the government and then foots the bill for the remainder of the shortfall in the increase in private-pay/insured patients. Eventually, everyone wants insurance to cover the ever-more-expensive office visits and routine care. Demand drives prices.

The case can be made for getting government out of the healthcare business, of course, but we all know that won’t happen anytime soon - until the country is broke. The abysmally low rate paid to doctors wasn’t an accident BTW. They knew it had to cause prices to rise to meet the manufactured shortfall. But, had they paid the ‘going’ rate taxes (the visible ones) would have had to raise dramatically. Far easier and safer for re-election if the tax is hidden in passed-on costs to consumers, then insurance companies, then right back to consumers again.


14 posted on 09/28/2012 8:50:08 AM PDT by RonInNaples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
All business opposed to Rat Obamacare should do this and announce it before the election, along with the numbers and the additional income tax that will be collected.

The new smaller paychecks would certainly not help Obama.

15 posted on 09/28/2012 8:55:39 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Of course they’ll have to buy it from a Gubbermint-run exchange where all the required benefits have been mandated by Obama. Hence the price will not possibly vary from provider to provider by more than 5%.


16 posted on 09/28/2012 9:03:48 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
makes good sense

Maybe for the company - BUT NOT for you ...

That extra money is TAXABLE income to you ...

For example, lets say you are single and a policy will cost you $4K ...

About 30% of that "income" will be taxable to you [$1.2K] in the form of Federal, State, FICA, etc.

So, now you have $2.8K for your healthcare that costs $4K ...

HELLO - YOU now need to pony up the $1.2K difference in order to get your healthcare ...

17 posted on 09/28/2012 9:20:19 AM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Let them compete......

How long before Sebelius orders them NOT to do this?

Big Insurance doesn’t want to have to compete, they want it all in big chunks, thats what the mandate was for.


18 posted on 09/28/2012 9:21:15 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Oh this is just plain stupid! How can we expected that the "people" are smart enough to make their own informed health choices?

These evil business owners are just doing this to screw the 99%. We need the gubment to tell us what is best.

must I? /s

19 posted on 09/28/2012 9:25:36 AM PDT by Drill Thrawl (I can haz CW 2 now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
I pay $51.00 per pay period, and I have to meet the 1500 person deductible before they cover any coverage except pharmaceuticals and drugs.

I have the same $1500 per person deductible, but my employer sponsored plan takes $300 per pay period. That includes coverage for my wife and youngest son. The costs are likely to change significantly next month when the annual benefits enrollment period starts.

20 posted on 09/28/2012 9:28:20 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

This is the natural path for most corporations and I see it likely to gain momentum. It is EXACTLY like the move toward 401(k) style pension plans. It limits corporate liability and stabilizes their cost.

A lot of people won’t like it - unintended consequences of Obamacare. Only problem is that the trend won’t be visible in time to affect the election outcome.

On the plus side, it brings competitive pressures to bear in the market - exactly what we want to control costs and improve options.


21 posted on 09/28/2012 9:34:47 AM PDT by Tandem (What ever happened to personal responsibility & self-reliance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl

I think there is a provision in Obamacare somewhere that they will assign someone to come over and hold your hand and make you a cup of hot chocolate while you are picking your insurance plan. :)


22 posted on 09/28/2012 9:38:02 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Yep, that’s what I mean. Government will find a way to prevent competition ... it’s what they do.


23 posted on 09/28/2012 9:39:29 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I think it should be taxable.
It is compensation (income).

No matter what you have left after taxes, you shop for the best deals on everything ... so why not insurance and medical care too?


24 posted on 09/28/2012 9:43:24 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
The worry for employees is that "the money may not be sufficient and it may not keep up with premium inflation."

So the employees think Barry, Pelosi and Harry are liars?

25 posted on 09/28/2012 9:44:20 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Sears Holdings Corp. and Darden Restaurants Inc. say the change isn't designed to make workers pay a higher share of health-coverage costs. Instead they say it is supposed to put more control over health benefits in the hands of employees.

Bite down through that yummy sugar coated shell and you are still chewing of a fecal fruit cake.

26 posted on 09/28/2012 9:44:51 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Take two Aspirin and call me in November - Obama for Hindmost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

they have been reading what I have been saying for five years

see my post # 29 in the following recent FreeRep thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2936656/posts


27 posted on 09/28/2012 9:45:18 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
This might turn out to be the for the best.

The insurance companies are declining coverage on many individual cases.

28 posted on 09/28/2012 9:47:45 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Take two Aspirin and call me in November - Obama for Hindmost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I think it should be taxable. It is compensation (income).

No matter what you have left after taxes, you shop for the best deals on everything ... so why not insurance and medical care too?

Lets say that I currently make $50K/year AND that I have a FREE medical benefit from my employer that costs $4K/year.

NOW, the employer is going to give me $4K so that my wages EFFECTIVELY increase to $54K/year.

The healthcare still costs $4K/year, BUT it is now TAXABLE INCOME to me.

SO, 30% is taken for all combined taxes, leaving me with $2.8K for healthcare that STILL costs $4K.

I NOW have to make up the difference [$1.2K] - EFFECTIVELY LOWERING my $50K wages to $48.8K.

TELL ME - who's getting SCREWED, ME or the COMPANY ???

It is me since I just got EFFECTIVELY hit with a $1.2K "TAX" in order to pay for the healthcare ...

29 posted on 09/28/2012 9:55:39 AM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

It’s a shame the Democrats passed Obamacare. Now a lot of employees are going to get a rude awakening and find out what their employer has Really been paying for years. The employee will get to pay for their healthcare, and the companies, via the “Roberts Tax” will get to pay for the healthcare of the “free cellphone crowd”.


30 posted on 09/28/2012 10:08:17 AM PDT by radioone ( Main Stream Media. The Government built that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Yes, I know it’s a hit but I just think that the health care exemption from taxes was a ruse and complicated things and tied people to their jobs that they might otherwise not want to be tied to.

I think if we simplify taxes and tax all income that we’d all be better off in end. Lowering taxes wouldn’t hurt either.

Honesly, that insurance was income. Great perk but we were just hoaxing the numbers saying it wasn’t income. Why not just raise the non-taxable limit on income ... same difference.


31 posted on 09/28/2012 10:11:57 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: radioone

Exactly.
This may have a silver lining.

Plus it relieves employers from all that paperwork associated with adminstering health insurance plans. What a nightmare!


32 posted on 09/28/2012 10:14:12 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Interesting concept, you should repost that here.

I hadn’t heard this Rand Paul proposal before. Thanks


33 posted on 09/28/2012 10:16:38 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

I don’t know exactly what Rand Paul’s proposal is/was.

Most of what I posted comes from my own thinking over the years. I all know of what Rand Paul said was the individuals should be incentivised to buy their own policies and that he thought they could cost about $3,000 a year.

I thought, by posting the link to my comments in the “Bill Frist” thread, that they were, by that means, available to those reading this thread.

Should I do more?


34 posted on 09/28/2012 10:22:46 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Yes, I know it’s a hit but I just think that the health care exemption from taxes was a ruse and complicated things and tied people to their jobs that they might otherwise not want to be tied to.

I think if we simplify taxes and tax all income that we’d all be better off in end. Lowering taxes wouldn’t hurt either.

Honesly, that insurance was income. Great perk but we were just hoaxing the numbers saying it wasn’t income. Why not just raise the non-taxable limit on income ... same difference.

Its noble of you to talk theory, "would be nice to's", and "shoulds" ...

BUT, I am talking REALITY - what the current situation is !!!

In my scenario, on a $50K salary with $4K given to me for healthcare - I EFFECTIVELY am having my salary REDUCED by 2.4% [$1.2K] in order to pay for something that PREVIOUSLY had been a benefit to me.

Does the company take a hit - NO !!! It gets to write the $4K off on the balance sheet as "salary".

*****

NOTE:

It would be one thing if the company "grossed up" the $4K to pay for it - but it won't.

"Grossing up" means that the company would give me $5.2K [$4K + $1.2K] so that the tax was paid. BUT, that $1.2K is ALSO taxable, so they "gross up" the $1.2K by 30% [$360]. The $360 is also taxable, so it it gets "grossed up", so an additional $108 is added ... and so on until the "gross up is less than $1 [I'll pay that].

The total "gross up" would result in a total of $5700.40 that would be paid by the company [$4K + $1700.40 for tax] to me.

This is what my comapny did when they paid my re-location fees.

*****

BUT, IT AIN'T GONNA DO THAT !!!

Does the government give me a tax credit - NO !!!

I GET SCREWED, the company is off the hook, AND the government gets EXTRA taxes [from me] - since the company's previous benefit to me was NOT previously taxable to them.

You say it is "taxable" - tell that to my kids when I tell them they can't go to Hershey Park, or a ball game, or other things BECAUSE I NOW am being "TAXED" for our healthcare !!!

35 posted on 09/28/2012 10:42:01 AM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Sorry. I just think if we’re going to tax income, tax all income. I’m tired of all the little games.

Also, it costs your employer a bundle to do the bookeeping on the insurance. That would save him/her money.

It wasn’t a good idea to begin with.

If everyone had to pay their own insurance and health care costs, prices would come down.


36 posted on 09/28/2012 12:36:42 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Sorry. I just think if we’re going to tax income, tax all income. I’m tired of all the little games.

In my scenario, I was being compensated to the tune of $54K per year and being taxed on $50K.

Now, I am being taxed at the full $54K - with NO adverse penalty to my employer.

I AM OUT OF POCKET AN ADDITIONAL $1200 THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN, THE COMPANY ACTUALLY ADDS MONEY TO ITS BOTTOM LINE, AND THE GOVERNMENT GETS FAT SUCKING EXTRA TAX OUT OF ME ...

Tell me - where is the Fairness in that?

What ever happened to, "If you make less than $250K, you won't see your taxes go up one penny ..."

OF COURSE IT DIDN'T - IT DIDN'T GO UP ONE PENNY, IT WENT UP 120,000 PENNIES !!!

And that is JUST one tax - more to come !!!

37 posted on 09/28/2012 1:04:34 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I’m not defending Obamacare.

I’m saying that the employer paid healthcare idea was never a good one and I’d like to see it phased out.

Income is income.

Once the government got involved in forcing employers to buy insurance for their emploeyees the whole situation go even more convoluted.

Like I said, I’d rather see the starting point for having to pay taxes go up than to employer provided health insurance benefits being untaxed. That is unfair to people whose employers don’t pay for health care. (Everything is unfair to someone I guess).

Maybe up the untaxed income threshhold to $18,000 per individual instead of around $9,000 now. That would mean you’d get an extra $9,000 of untaxed income over what you get now.


38 posted on 09/28/2012 1:15:48 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I’m not defending Obamacare.

I’m saying that the employer paid healthcare idea was never a good one and I’d like to see it phased out.

Income is income.

Once the government got involved in forcing employers to buy insurance for their emploeyees the whole situation go even more convoluted.

Like I said, I’d rather see the starting point for having to pay taxes go up than to employer provided health insurance benefits being untaxed. That is unfair to people whose employers don’t pay for health care. (Everything is unfair to someone I guess).

Maybe up the untaxed income threshhold to $18,000 per individual instead of around $9,000 now. That would mean you’d get an extra $9,000 of untaxed income over what you get now.


39 posted on 09/28/2012 1:15:56 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Well business once said our employees are our most important asset. Now it’s just shows that employees are now an expense rather than an asset and they can be written off quickly.


40 posted on 09/28/2012 1:32:17 PM PDT by ex-snook (without forgiveness there is no Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Nothing has changed.

An employee earns the employer a multiple of their salary + benefits or they are gone ... or the business goes bankrupt and all the employees are gone.

Always been that way.


41 posted on 09/28/2012 1:40:28 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: catman67
Of course that extra income will be taxable.

Actually, McCain proposed this as a reform and it was going to be a tax credit for the employee.

42 posted on 09/28/2012 1:51:59 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Good! A reason for American employees to start caring about healthcare inflation. Something similar would happen if the guv just gave some lump sum toward Jr’s higher education, rather than play the game of loans for it.


43 posted on 09/28/2012 2:09:07 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Exactly.

AND everyone should pay their own damn taxes instead of the employer taking it out of their paycheck for them. If they had to write the IRS a check every month or quarter they would really feel it.


44 posted on 09/28/2012 2:37:31 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

true, that.


45 posted on 09/28/2012 2:53:20 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
This might turn out to be the for the best. People will have to shop around for insurance (and care).

No, this is a way for companies to prepare to dump peoples' health insurance coverage starting in 2014.

The trouble is, as long as people are more concerned with premiums and the size of co-payments rather than the actual costs to deliver the healthcare, the problem will always exist. When providers have to concern themselves with meeting the paperwork requirements of bureaucrats to get paid their pittance (be they insurance bureaucrats or government bureaucrats), rather than figuring out more efficient ways of meeting demand, there will not be innovation to make healthcare more affordable. Rather, there will be ways to figure out how to game the system more effectively...on both ends.

The only way out of this is:

Otherwise, you're just dealing with fascism vs socialism...the same bird, just from different angles.

46 posted on 09/29/2012 7:56:25 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson