Joining the Battle on Health Care
At long last the Obama campaign is trying to get some attention for John McCain’s health care proposals — proposals that are much more radical than they seem at first glance. The crux of the matter is that McCain wants to eliminate the tax-favored treatment of employer-provided health insurance, substantially undue regulatory minimums about what insurance plans must cover, and over time phase out any form of tax preference for health insurance whatsoever. The vision, at the end of the day, is to create a situation where most Americans have much less comprehensive insurance coverage. The theory is that with higher out-of-pocket costs and less insurance, people will become more discerning consumers and health care quality and/or cost effectiveness will rise.
The part of this that’s most vulnerable to public attack, it seems, is the point that McCain wants to impose a huge new tax on employer provided health care. The McCain campaign likes to say that this will be offset by a tax credit of $2,500 for an individual or $5,000 per family to buy insurance on the open market. Obama is countering that $5,000 won’t cover the costs of an individual plan, whose average costs are around $12,000. That’s true, but a bit misleading, since it neglects the fact that if we shift away from employer-provided health care people should wind up seeing higher cash wages. The bigger problem with the $5,000 tax credit is that — by designed — it won’t keep pace with the rising cost of health care. It’s pegged to the consumer price index. But some CPI items will predictably see slower-than-average inflation (blu-ray players, etc.) while others see faster-than-average inflation, including health care.
This isn’t a design flaw in McCain’s program, it’s the point of the program. Combined with deregulating the insurance industry it’s supposed to produce a world in which, over time, people are less-and-less insured. This is in keeping with the basic conservative philosophy about our health care problems — that they’re driven by too many people having cushy insurance plans — but it’s pretty strongly at odds with how most people would define the problem.
54 Responses to “Joining the Battle on Health Care”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
if we shift away from employer-provided health care people should wind up seeing higher cash wages
Does this actually happen? Or does the money just sit in the employer’s hands instead of trickling down?
October 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Good luck to McCain trying to explain this in a town hall meeting.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
If you think employers are going to raise wages when they drop health insurance, I have a Bridge to Nowhere you may want to buy.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“substantially *undo*”
*sigh*
October 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Re: Obama is countering that $5,000 won’t cover the costs of an individual plan, whose average costs are around $12,000.
My workplace coverage (a fairly gold-plated Fortune 500 plan) costs 425$ a month, as I was informed earlier this year when I briefly thought I would be laid off and was given that figure for COBRA coverage. While individuals with major pre-existing health conditions might well see $1000 a month premiums no way would the average person have premiums that high. Last time I looked into individual coverage (early 2006) I found a decent plan for $235 a month, and that took into acount the fact I have chronic asthma and was 39 that year. Yes, I think McCain’s ideas are horrible here and yes, Obama should hit hard on this, but that should not include making up wildly inflated numbers out of thin air.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
JonF
You found family coverage for $425 a month? Where?!? Or are you confusing individual with family coverage? the $12,000 figure is for family coverage
October 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Like Neil, I’d like some evidence for the statement that cash wages will rise to fill the $7000 gap. I suspect there will be some rise, but it will largely depend on individual negotiations.
Also, don’t employers get better deals through collective bargaining? How will this change?
October 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
McCain’s fundamental problem here is that lots of people like the healthcare they get trough their employer. If they get the sense that under his plan, their employer is likely to drop it, they’re really not going to be impressed with getting a check for $5k to make up the difference.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
if we shift away from employer-provided health care people should wind up seeing higher cash wages
Et tu, Matt? And here I wanted you to kill Ross for saying the same thing. In what world would rages rise to fill this gap? If employers cut everyone’s insurance at the same time, everyone’s even again. There’s no incentive for employers to fill the gap with higher wages — who would they be competing against when their competitors would also cutting benefits at the same time?
October 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maine, for one. Of course there is a slight catch: the $15,000 annual deductible. So what I am insuring my family of four against is, simply, a catastrophic health emergency. It’s not “family coverage” in the same way or even the same spirit as when I had a company-sponsored health care plan.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Currently employer paid insurance is an expense a company charges. I don’t believe for a moment that if a company dropped
employer based group coverage they would raise wages anymore than they have to to get and keep employees. Why? In addition to the actual wages paid to an employee, an employer pays the employer share of SS tax and also it would raise their premiums on unemployment insurance and workman’s compensation, which are all based off wages paid. An employer, would rather give my employees expensible benefits than raise wages.
But then this a a Repug to do away with all these terrible profit killing rules and regulations. On wait, but McCain/Pallin are going to fight for Joe Sixpack against those evil Wall Streeters.
Not to mention, that individual policy cost more even for young healthy people and that are all but impossible to get for an older person, not to mention one with heart problems. or diabeties or HIV.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Much like Wall St. executives, McCain trusts that businesses will operate in a non-greedy manner and raise wages while they eliminate health care.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“…if we shift away from employer-provided health care people should wind up seeing higher cash wages.”
No, employers will have higher profits. Benefits like health care were largely obtained by pressure from unions, which are much weaker now. This is just another step in reverting to the pre-union days of the early 20th century.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
In the last twenty years manufacturing output per person has increased over 75%. Real wages have increased less that 20% (both per the BLS).
If employers have chosen not to share a 75% increase in productivity and profit with their employees, what would make you think they’d share a $7,800 cost savings with them?
October 4th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Like everyone else (in the world, apparantly) I find it hard to believe that employers won’t keep that extra money as profit instead of raising their employees’ wages. If we have no guarantee that it will happen then we can not assume that it will. In fact, we should base our opinion on their previous behavior. During good economic times, they chose not to raise wages. So it is only logical to assume that they would view this insurance plan as a moneysaving scheme during the upcoming economic slowdown.
Additionally, the Republican mania for viewing every issue through a purely free market lens shows one of its greatest weaknesses here. The idea that we “overconsume” health care ignores the benefits of preventative care, which, if nickle and dimed as they seem to want it, would only drive up end care costs. It is less expensive to catch and treat, say breast cancer, early through yearly mammograms, rather than later. You also have an exponetially greater chance of survival in early detection. And as for the smaller illnesses — flus, pneumonias — those would just end up going to emergency rooms in higher numbers, which would impede ERs from treating real emergencies. Not that they seem to care about treating patients, but I thought I’d throw that in.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
The other point of the McCain plan is to kill off employer provided health insurance in order to increase the amount of choice in the insurance marketplace. With employment based insurance, the insurance company can decide whether or not to contract with the employer, but once it contracts with the employer, it has to cover all of the employees, not just the most healthy ones. And if you are an employee, the only way you can switch to a different insurer is to switch jobs.
Palin made a comment during the debate that initially struck me as bizarre:
I’ve subsequently learned that the freedom Ronald Reagan was talking about was the freedom not to be covered by Medicare. This still strikes me as bizarre, but at least I recognize the ideology. McCain and Palin oppose Medicare and employer based insurance because they see them as contrary to freedom.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Neil: “Does this actually happen? Or does the money just sit in the employer’s hands instead of trickling down?”
Well, first off, businesses can no longer list health premiums as an expense, which reduces the $12,000 in benefits by ~35% depending on the business’s tax bracket. So assume that $12,000 is reduced to $7,800. Then if its given to the employee as wages, they must pay income tax and FICA, which is between 10% and 35% for income tax and 15.3% for FICA. Split the difference and assume our worker is in the 25% tax bracket. That leaves $4656 for the worker out of that original $12,000.
The worker could instead deposit the extra wages into a Health Savings Account, and get back the 25% in income tax (at least for the first $5,650), but would then have to enroll in a High Deductible Health Plan.
At least, that’s as far as I can tell. I could have missed something.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I wanted to know the facts know so I did some digging to see what experts that have evaluated McCains plan had to say.
Here is what they came up with: First and foremost, what this plan does is TAX THE VALUE of your employer-paid benefits. THIS RESULTS IN MORE MONEY COMING OUT OF YOUR PAYCHECK in NEW TAXES.
Second–The “tax credit” he refers to is meant to OFFSET (to a certain degree) the NEW TAXES you WILL be paying.
McCain admits that in the future, the $5,000 credit may not be “enough to cover” the amount of NEW TAXES you will be paying. …….Sound like a bargain so far?
The McCain plan would send a credit directly to your insurance company, NOT YOU, as follows:
$5,000 credit for an entire family, however coverage for a family costs about $13,000 per year.
Single persons would receive $2,500 credit, but coverage for a single person costs around $5,000
You are responsible for paying the rest.
The people that would most benefit from the McCain plan are those persons that are buying their health insurance independently (NOT THROUGH YOUR EMPLOYER)—This only accounts for 5% OF THE POPULATION.
61% OF THE non-elderly POPULATION get their health coverage through their employer.
So- the experts concluded that:
“The current tax system encourages companies to offer insurance, and indeed, 61 percent of the nonelderly population in the U.S. had insurance through their jobs. (Only 5 percent, 13 million people, bought their own insurance.) McCain’s plan to tax workers on the value of their employer-provided health care plans and provide tax credits would encourage some employers, mainly small businesses, to drop health benefits, say experts, and the proposal could eventually eliminate job-based insurance altogether.”
They also said that insurance compaines will no doubt arrange for policies for healthy, young people to fall somewhere around $5,000, luring them to drop their employer-sponsored coverage, thus creating a pool of us older, sicker folks (that still need our emp.-sponsored coverge) that they will dramatically raise rates on. This of course will make employers want to not offer coverage any more.
It’s a nightmare. Thanks, but NO THANKS!
October 4th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Re: You found family coverage for $425 a month?
That is the cost for an individual under my employer’s group plan, which is a very generous plan of the sort few people have nowadays at work. And reread what Matt wrote. It may have been a mis-print (I like Matt and I will happily give him the benefit of the doubt) but he explicitly said that individual policies were running $12,000/yr.
Re: McCain’s fundamental problem here is that lots of people like the healthcare they get through their employer.
Indeed, and I’m surprised the GOP would consider disrupting people’s health coverage in such a fashion when back in 1994 they were quick to exploit the far less degree of disruption Hillary’s plan would have created. I can only surmise that the GOP ideologues are in the pay of a handful of piranha insurance companies (like the former Golden Rule) who would benefit from this sort of change. Most of the really big insurers (Aetna, United Health, the Blues, Kaiser, etc.) vastly prefer group policies too and would not be on board at all for this sort of switch. They would much prefer a Romneyeque reform that mandated coverage for everyone with government subsidies.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Jer: employer-paid premiums would continue to be treated as fully deductible business expenses under McCain’s plan. The main reasons firms would be likely to drop coverage are:
1) Employer-paid health insurance as a benefit would be less valuable to employees, because it would be taxable income. Over time this would almost certainly prompt many employers to drop coverage, because cash spent on this benefit would be a weaker tool for attracting and retaining employees.
2) Employers under McCain’s plan would have to pay payroll taxes on any monies spent on premiums.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
The biggest issue that is hard to explain to public is that in the case of health insurance consumer choice is bad for consumers. Consumers try to figure which plan would be appropriate for them, and they have some ability to predict their needs. Companies compensate by figuring out who will choose what, and by slapping huge premium on packages that offer more. The rules of what is covered and what is not can be arcane in the extreme, and variable to boot. Moreover, companies have to create very expensive bureaucracies to keep track of those arcane rules, and to keep re-designing them in a way that would confuse the public into making choices which are better for companies.
Thus the destruction of employer provided involuntary group insurance is moving large part of the health care cost into increase administration overhead.
Compulsory or universal insurance goes in the opposite direction.
So in some sense it is a secondary issue if McCain’s plan result in net decrease or increase of tax liabilities. The biggest difference is that it destroys the most effective form of health insurance currently available to working Americans, rather than seeking more effective forms.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
@JonF:
That is the point, though. You could not buy the comprehensive plan that you have for $425/month ($5000/year) on the open market. Because your employer is kicking in part of the cost.
On the open market (where I have to buy my family coverage because I’m self-employed), you could either pay $425/month for a $15k annual deductible (what I do), or you could pay $1000/month for a plan that covers more with a deductible such as you probably have now. $12k/year for decent comprehensive coverage on the open market is not at all out of line.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
All good points by Matthew, except for the fact that employers are likely to pass on any savings from not having to provide health insurance, along to the the employee. Since, presumably there’s no mandate that they do so, it won’t happen.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
My wife declined the group health insurance through her employer because she had my (slightly better) insurance. She got no bumb in salary. This is a quite common occurance and it is the rare employer that pays extra salary. In fact, I’ve never heard of one.
The tax credit is only a credit, not a voucher. If you are near the AMT or you pay less than $5000 in taxes, you would not qualify for the full amount. How much income do you need before you get to $5K in taxes? ~$40,000 for a joint return. So, every family in America making less than $40,000 would certainly see a much reduced tax credit.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
So in some sense it is a secondary issue if McCain’s plan result in net decrease or increase of tax liabilities. The biggest difference is that it destroys the most effective form of health insurance currently available to working Americans, rather than seeking more effective forms.
I agree, that is the central issue.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
> Re: You found family coverage for $425 a month?
>
> That is the cost for an individual under my employer’s group
> plan, which is a very generous plan of the sort few people
> have nowadays at work.
I hate to be the one to break the news to you dude, but not only is your employer’s health plan gold plated but so is its layoff benefits. I would be willing to bet that the $425 is the /employee’s portion/ of the cost of health care, and that they have decided to charge only that portion during the COBRA period as part of the layoff package. The employee’s portion of a gold plated program nowadays is 10-20% of the total. Say 20%; that would make the total premium $2125/mo which sounds about right for low-deductible “gold plated” family plans.
Of course, then there is the cap amount…
Cranky
October 4th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
The most important thing about McCain’s plan is that- by intent- it will drive people from group plans into individual policies. And individual policies ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE the way group plans are.
My brother left a corporate plan and bought a high-end, expensive individual plan because he went to work at a software start-up. Unfortunately, he then developed heart problems. His individual policy was renewable every 6 months, and they immediately raised the rates to more than $3000 PER MONTH. It was cheaper to pay his cardiologist himself.
Other people who developed serious illness while on individual policies have had their policies cancelled due to the loathsome practice of “retroactive underwriting”.
And, of course, McCain advocates letting insurers write policies in states in which they are not licensed, making it even harder for a sick person to enforce their policy.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Re:You could not buy the comprehensive plan that you have for $425/month ($5000/year) on the open market.
???
That’s the whole cost (per individual). If I were younger and completely healthy I could almost certainly buy the same plan cheaper than that. If I were older and less healthy it would cost me more. That’s how risk pooling works: everyone pays the same price, the young and the healthy in effect paying more than they otherwise would to cover the older and sicker (and yes, that’s something I support). There’s an incredible amount of ignorance on this thread on how health insurance financing works. No wonder the GOP has been able to demagogue the issue for sixty years
Re: On the open market (where I have to buy my family coverage because I’m self-employed), you could either pay $425/month for a $15k annual deductible (what I do), or you could pay $1000/month for a plan that covers more with a deductible such as you probably have now.
It would depend very crucially on my age and state of health. In 2002 (yes, I know–six years ago), when I was 35 and before my asthma became an issue (that happened when I move to Florida) I paid a grand total of $95 a month for a fairly comprehensive policy (and no the deductible was NOT $10,000! I paid $20 per doctor visit and Rx waS covered at a $5/10/25 rate). If you are paying some godawful amount for a shitty policy you either have a really bad health history, are nearing retirement age or are being thoroughly ripped off by crooks and owe it to yourself to shop around more. And again: I worked in the business up until 2006. I know what rates were (in Florida and Texas at least) back in those days. The numbers I am quoting you are realistic: a healthy young (= under 40) person could almost certainly find a policy similar to what I had in 2002 for under twice what I paid then (say, around $160 a month), unless they are in one of the few states that requires community rating in which case their rates will be more like $400 a month to cover the older and sicker subscribers. Health insurance is NOT, I repeat, NOT as expensive as you people are saying it is. Which is why we can cover everyone in this country if we have the determination to do so. Educate yourselves for crying out loud and quit repeating the righwting’s propanganda about how universal coverage will bankrupt us.
Re: I would be willing to bet that the $425 is the /employee’s portion/ of the cost of health care, and that they have decided to charge only that portion during the COBRA period as part of the layoff package.
What are you talking about? My portion of the monthly premium is $60– that’s right on my paycheck stub. (I will mention, but not go into detail about the outrage of having to pay income tax and even FICA on the whole amount of the premium that is paid for my domestic partner since we are not married, and being a same sex couple and not in CA or MA, can’t be) But I wasn’t laid off (the lay-off notice was in fact a mistake sent out by an incompetent HR person) so I never paid COBRA. And when you do pay COBRA you pay the full amount of the premium– the company pays nada, zip, zero I used to work for a health benefits company, though that should be common knowledge. Is there no one else here who has paid COBRA, or been quoted rates when leaving a job? What were the numbers, for an individual coverage not a whole family.
Re: $12k/year for decent comprehensive coverage on the open market is not at all out of line.
Yes it is, unless (once again) you are well advanced in years or have some serious health problems.
Re: My wife declined the group health insurance through her employer because she had my (slightly better) insurance. She got no bumb in salary.
My step-sister’s company offers its employees an extra $100 month if they decline coverage– and that only because the workers are covered by a union contract. Put me down as another skeptic that employers would return health premiums to workers in wages unless forced to by law. It sure the heck doesn’t work that way now.
Re: So, every family in America making less than $40,000 would certainly see a much reduced tax credit.
The AMT doesn’t kick in until you reach c. 70K (about twice that for married couples) and then only if you itemize. (Note: I made 60K+ last year but could use only the standard deduction and personal exemption. No AMT issues.) Where in the world are people getting their numbers on this thread? I am almost prepared to believe that this blog is available in alternate realities where different tax and insurance cicrumstances prevail.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:33 am
They have a great commercial up here in Wisconsin that captures this argument well. It quotes the McCain web site saying the money will go straight to the insurance company. We thought it was tough and issues-based and kind of funny how they used McCain’s web site against him.
October 5th, 2008 at 1:04 am
“If employers cut everyone’s insurance at the same time, everyone’s even again. There’s no incentive for employers to fill the gap with higher wages — who would they be competing against when their competitors would also cutting benefits at the same time?”
A history lesson is important here. Why do we have employer provided healthcare? Because during WWII there were wage controls and the fringe benefits (read: healthcare) was how employers competed for labor. Employer provided healthcare is the original sin of the US health care system.
I think the other point that should be discussed is Matt’s point about the credit growing with CPI as opposed to medical inflation. One, it would seem to me that indexing the credit to medical inflation would itself contribute to medical inflation. His point about resulting in less insurance is certainly true to some extent. Though, if we look back at the Rand study we find that levels of coinsurance have a negligible impact on health outcomes except for lower income folks. This would suggest a form of progressive cost sharing, something along the lines of a progressive tax credit that would be generous enough that lower class folks could afford a policy that covers first dollar coverage and zeroes out by the time you get to the top income tax bracket. Wait, that was a policy suggested by Jason Furman, Obama’s economic policy director (along with taxing employer health insurance premiums as income!). I love how elections make hacks out of all of us. Yglesias is a good writer but on this subject this a form of purposeful obtuseness, and it seems to be contagious (see Brad DeLong and Ezra Klein).
October 5th, 2008 at 1:07 am
I hasten to add though, one area where there really is legitimate criticism of the McCain plan is in its lack of detail or absence of thought on the individual market. But that is not as compelling about talking about those missing $7k.
October 5th, 2008 at 2:24 am
When McCain sat down with the journalists and editors in Des Moines, one of them asked, “Have you always been covered for health care by a taxpayera’ financed health care plan?” He seemed genuinely stumped by that and didn’t seem to have any response except, “That’s an interesting statement.”
(You can see this on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nskNRlx0A7Y&NR=1)
October 5th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Reading through this whole thread, I started wondering if this really matters. Even if McCain pulls the election out, what’s the chance of this plan getting through any conceivable Congress? It strikes me as just about as likely as the big spending cuts Reagan was always hinting at, but never got around to actually proposing.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:26 am
> And when you do pay COBRA you pay the
> full amount of the premium– the company
> pays nada, zip, zero
That all depends on your layoff package. Various times that I have been under COBRA I have paid all, some, or none of the total premium depending on the circumstances of the layoff.
Cranky
October 5th, 2008 at 10:34 am
If you are an executive, you might be able to negotiate your COBRA package but ordinary workers usually cannot. Employers can also add an administrative charge onto the full amount of the premium.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’m a little surprised that no one has cited the following study:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.27.6.w472/DC1
which was released a couple of weeks ago, and discussed by Bob Herbert in the NYTimes. It’s nicely wonky look at the long-term implications of McCain’s proposal–pretty terrifying stuff. Here’s the abstract:
Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) health plan would eliminate the current tax exclusion of employer payments for health coverage, replace the exclusion with a refundable tax credit for those who purchase coverage, and encourage Americans to move to a national market for nongroup insurance. Middle-range estimates suggest that initially this change will have little impact on the number of uninsured people, although within five years this number will likely grow as the value of the tax credit falls relative to rising health care costs. Moving toward a relatively unregulated nongroup market will tend to raise costs, reduce the generosity of benefits, and leave people with fewer consumer protections. [Health Affairs 27, no. 6 (2008): w472-w481 (published online 16 September 2008; 10.1377/ hlthaff.27.6.w472)]
October 5th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“This isn’t a design flaw in McCain’s program, it’s the point of the program. Combined with deregulating the insurance industry it’s supposed to produce a world in which, over time, people are less-and-less insured. This is in keeping with the basic conservative philosophy about our health care problems — that they’re driven by too many people having cushy insurance plans — but it’s pretty strongly at odds with how most people would define the problem.” — MY
Actually, conservative philosophy seems to favor this approach because it recognizes health insurance corporations as wealthy and powerful which will both heavily contribute to conservative politicians’ campaigns and use other methods to get conservatives elected, as long as conservatives ensure they are better then democrats at getting public funds into the coffers of these companies. Having people pay less money for health insurance is not the goal, but rather forcing the majority to have less bargaining power so those companies can squeeze more money out of them.
I also agree with many posters above that it is highly unlikely if employers decide health insurance is too expensive to offer their employees that the employees will se any of that money go into their own pockets. Well, maybe the CEOs will, but not the run of the mill employees.
I think it’s time to recognize the Republican party (and for that matter, many democrats) as basically belonging to an organized crime group determined to defraud the public by funelling their tax dollars to wealthy campaign contributors.
October 5th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
When I left my corporate job last year, I was paying about $145 per month for a Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO plan, which covered my wife and I. It was the only reason I had stayed in my job for so long. When the COBRA statement came, I found that I would have to pay close to $925 per month for the same coverage IN ADDITION TO the $145 that had been coming out of my paycheck. So that’s close to $1100 a month for a family of 2, or $13000 per year. Now it’s true that if my employer didn’t pay for my health coverage, I probably would have received a higher salary. But would it have been $11000 higher? I doubt it. Group rates and government incentives let companies claim employees get a much more valuable compensation package than they actually do.
October 5th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
> If you are an executive, you might be able
> to negotiate your COBRA package but ordinary
> workers usually cannot. Employers can also add an
> administrative charge onto the full amount of the premium.
Between the exceptionally low rates you claim you are being quoted for full-plan private health insurance, your lack of understanding that eventually everyone loses the health they enjoy in their 20s, and your lack of experience with severance packages in todays lovely Schumperian/Hobbsian world of work I am guessing you are about – 23 years old.
Cranky
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 am
Hello Everybody
I just became a part of this forum here and I would like to be a part of it.
Just love the atmosphere here. Great effort by the admin and mods and every member around.
I appreciate the classof videos and links provided by every personhere and hope I can do my own bit of input.
Just to start off, I came across this site MyCollagenBeauty.com that is offering a 10-minute Skin Regeneration line up created especially so that individuals that have thin-skinned skin, acne skin problems can fully utilize the precious ingredients contained in Collagen Beauty Line products. Using the simple rules of the Program, you can be confident that you will give your skin everything necessary for it to look more beautiful every day.
About 80% of your skin is made from collagen, giving the skin its indispensable structure.
Collagen makes skin stronger, thicker and more supple, which is what makes skin smooth, firm and strong – and young looking. But regrettably as we age the skin losses collagen and your body progressively produces less and less.
To optimize the effects of skin care using Collagen Beauty Line cosmetics, the 10-minute Skin Regeneration Program was created.
o Apply Collagen Beauty Exclusive to dry and cleansed face. Using your fingertips dab the gel gently into the skin.
o Wait 10 minutes until gel is completely absorbed and you will feel a slight skin tension.
o Apply a small amount of Collagen Beauty GLA Revive, Collagen Beauty Light or Collagen Beauty Marigold Cream and then gently spread it or dab it into the skin.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Hola a todos, en mi primer post me gustaría compartir algo con vosotros, Ya sabéis que para buscar y descargar música en internet, tenemos muy pocas opciones, generalmente utilizamos el emule o el ares, pero yo personalmente encuentro bastante frustrante bajarme una canción y que no sea la que busco, porque pierdo bastante tiempo encontrando material de calidad.
Una amiga me recomendó utilizar Altavz como mi buscador de música, y la verdad es una gozada.
Además de poder escuchar la canción, descargarla o agregarla a tus listas preferidas puedes encontrar a otros usuarios y compartir tu música con ellos.
Hace mucho que no utilizo emule, sino este buscador de música.
February 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Hi, I just became a part of this forum here and I would love to be a part of it.
Seriously, love the contribution of the community.
I thought I’d do some contributing of my own and share with you this amazing program i just got into thats making me now about $8000.00 a week and i just started.
check it out http://www.endlesscash365.com
Anyway, enjoy a superior online experience and hope to hang out with you guys more often.
Peace!
February 7th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Hi,
I just became a part of this forum here and I would love to be a part of it.
Kudos goes out to the mods and members! Seriously, I love the contribution of the community. I thought I’d do some contributing of my own.
Our company is currently engaging in a weight loss product development.
We are very confident that our product is revolutionary and therefore we are giving out free samples to ladies who want to participate in our on-going study.
Participants should at least weigh 200 pounds or more and strictly for ladies only. Kindly visit Our Website for more details.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Greetings all!
Been lurking here for a while and finally decided to register and post a message of my own.
Just to introduce myself, my name is Natalie and I really like dancing, my dogs, and to watch gossip girl (this is my favorite site to do it at).
Anyways, thanks for the great forum and I’ll talk to you all more soon!
March 11th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 13th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Hey fellow forum friends
Let’s Get’er done!
Now Is The Best Time To Get A Home Loan Or Refinance……Rates Are LOW…….
Refinancing Home Loans
hgfuf|516|(uydr)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Great post. I love anything related to skincare, thanks a lot
March 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
This is not bad advice, unlike a lot I have come across.
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 6:49 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Incredible site!
viagra
April 17th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Just joined the forum, it’s my first post, hello to everyone.