« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

We Must End Gov’t Bias Towards Employer-Provided Health Coverage

The liberal cycle of statism, at its core, originates from a government-induced problem.  When nobody is paying attention to an issue, liberals swoop in and impose a pernicious regulation or mandate on a private industry.  That regulation lays dormant for a number of years like a ticking time bomb.  Then, many years later, it blows up the industry.  Liberals summarily swoop in to accuse private enterprise of raising costs on the poor, and demand that their “solutions” be enacted.

Nowhere is this cycle more evident than with the health insurance industry.  During the 40s, Congress imposed wage controls on private employers, limiting the pay raises that could be doled out to employees.  This destructive and unconstitutional act led employers to look for other means of compensation to attract talent and reward productive employees.  This gave rise to the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance officially created in 1954.

In short order, most employers began paying for the health insurance of their workers.  This in turn distorted the market and tilted the playing field away from the individual. It also dramatically spiked the cost of health insurance by providing too much coverage and generating artificially increased demand.  This system also shielded consumers from the real cost of the coverage.  Hence, we are now stuck with a situation where those who don’t enjoy employer-provided coverage are holding the bag of higher costs – all brought to you by government’s infringement on the free market.

Conservative healthcare policy expert Avik Roy offers an insightful presentation on the inimical effects of government’s tendentious treatment of employer-based coverage at Forbes online.  Here is the thrust of his argument:

Stanford Nobelist Kenneth Arrow famously described third-party insurance as one of the principal flaws in America’s health-care market. That is to say, because patients don’t pay for their health care directly, they’re insensitive to the cost and value of that care. But the 155 million Americans with employer-sponsored insurance in fact have fourth-party insurance. Not only do they not directly pay for their care, but they don’t directly pay for their third-party insurance.

It is, therefore, no surprise that insurers cave in when hospitals demand higher prices. Workers have no idea what their employers spend on their health plans, and therefore get upset when their employers buy insurance that doesn’t provide access to brand-name hospitals. “Of critical importance [to increased hospital leverage] was employer resistance to choice-limiting networks with few providers,” write the Health Affairs authors.

We’ve gotten to the point that almost 60% of those under 65 receive their health insurance from their employer.  It’s bad enough that we have all this third-party money – from overused insurance to Medicare, Medicaid, and SChip – shielding consumers from the costs and distorting the natural market for healthcare.  Fourth-party coverage, as Mr. Roy put it, is even worse.  This system is unsustainable and must be reformed.

Instead of contemplating retaining some of the worst mandates under Obamacare in order to help the uninsured, Republicans should move to rectify the market-distortions created by government intervention.

There are obviously many different ways to inject more market forces into the system, but the lowest hanging fruit is the bias towards employer-based insurance. The least we can do is end government’s bias towards fourth-party payer healthcare and then work on the third-party elements (including Medicare and Medicaid) at a later date.  This can be accomplished by either eliminating the tax preference for employer-provided health insurance or offering it to individuals as well, along with expansion of HSAs to include any insurance plan.  Obviously, before we enact any new reforms, we must kill Obamacare to prevent employers from being further incentivized to dump people into the Obamacare exchanges.

It will take years and numerous reforms to restore the free market in healthcare from government control, but the least we can do is put an end to the special treatment of employer-based tax coverage.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • JSobieski

    even if it was by accident.

    • http://madisonproject.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      The only thing I would note is that I wouldn’t support a “refundable” credit, meaning one that would provide someone with a negative tax liability unless we made serious cuts to Medicaid and other current government subsidized healthcare. If we would go the refundable rout it should begin to* replace* welfare.

      • JSobieski

        in favor of 4th party arrangements.

        A refundable tax credit makes it more like a right-wing version of Obamacare.

  • gmscan

    I have spent 20 years trying to get conservatives to understand this. Unfortunately, the biggest obstacle has been employers themselves, and many conservatives are knee jerk “pro-business” so will not do anything to upset business — even when it screws people.

    There is a very big difference between being “pro-freedom” and “pro-business.” As we saw during the ObamaCare debate, business is perfectly happy to cut a deal with the socialists if they think it will be profitable. PhRMA, AHIP, AHA, FAHS, NAHU, even NFIB for a while, were all willing to sell their souls to get a “seat at the table.”

    More recently, “business” (at least some of it) has been willing to throw groups like ALEC and the Heartland Institute down the stairs to placate the Left.

    Thank God for the Tea Party.

    Greg Scandlen

    • JSobieski

      We have let libs saddle the 4th party payor system onto the reputation of capitalism.

      • http://madisonproject.com/ Daniel Horowitz

        Liberals always contend that the current system with all its vices (pre-Obamacare) is a result of the free market, and therefore, we are in need of government run healthcare. The reality is the opposite. Nothing about the current system represents free market capitalism, and that is the source of the problems. We need less government interventions, not things like the slacker and per-existing conditions mandate.

    • garfieldjl

      People make decisions to work at a company for more reasons than simply the amount of money they make.

      Businesses tend to be better (when unions aren’t in the mix) at making sure they don’t promise more than they can afford when you compare them to government.

      I don’t really see the problem with employers providing employees health insurance. I don’t even think this has to do with the problem.

      As someone that has experience with college bookstores, the students think the bookstores are out to hose the students, but that isn’t often the case. They often have to pay outrageous costs for books, plus there is additionally the whims of the professor whom changes book requirements at the last minute so the bookstore has to fight with the publisher to get their money back (some universities are better than others on this issue), professors telling the bookstore a book is required and then telling students they don’t need the book, etc. All of these cause huge costs to the bookstores which in turn have to raise their prices so they can stay in business.

      Health insurance companies have to deal with issues as well, but then so do doctors and hospitals. For instance medicare and medicaid do not pay nearly enough in the way of compensation, in short doctors and hospitals are often taking a monetary loss every time they have to deal with a patient that is on medicare or medicaid. This cost has to be made up for by raising their rates and thus the insurance companies get hit with the added costs. That is assuming medicare and medicaid gives any payment at all, cause they often stiff the doctors and hospitals.

      While you are arguing that people are going to the doctor more than necessary, I’m not entirely sure that is the case. I don’t think many people like going to see the doctor or going to the hospital.

      I think the situation is that government should stay the heck out of healthcare as much as possible, because politics and healthcare don’t mix.

      • acat

        Doctors think patients are showing up too often.

        Emergency rooms are *drowning* in patients who come in for stuff that should wait for a general practitioner or a doc-in-a-box during regular office hours.

        Doctors routinely order tests, not because they’re needed, but because *their* insurance company, i.e. the one covering them in case of a malpractice suit, require it.

        Your last paragraph confirms your ignorance – more Americans get their health care from the government than from the largest health care provider. Go see if you can figure out why Gingrich wrote HIPPA, eh?

        Mew

        • garfieldjl

          People show up at the emergency room for things because they can often get out of having to pay for the health care directly when they aren’t insured.

          We’re also looking at two different groups of doctors, I agree with you on the “too many tests” argument, however I’m not referring to those instances.

          When it has to do with Autism, ADD, etc. there are doctors out there that are complete quacks. You have to be extremely careful because they are actually in the academic community.

          So basically acat, we’re talking about two different groups of doctors, cause I largely agree with you on your points concerning the doctors you are referring to.

          • garfieldjl

            Your comment bringing up doctors threw me off acat, looking back at the comment I made that you were responding to I’m not getting where you are coming up with the argument about doctors, I thought you were refering to another comment I had made.

          • acat

            You disagreed with the statement that people are going to the doctor too often.

            My point was that *doctors* agree with the statement that people are going to the doctor too often.

            That’s where doctors came into it.

            Mew

        • Viet71

          Was admitted to an ER by my doc in January 2011 for a blood clot (too much time in economy on a flight to the West Coast and back).

          Sat in the ER admitting room for over an hour, observing my fellow patients. Downtown Hartford, Connecticut. Everyone but me was black or hispanic and poor. They had no choice. And they weren’t there on a lark. The waiting room was stark, uncomfortable, and everyone waited.

          I got plenty of tests over five days and two CAT scans. Nothing egregious.

          I was self-pay. Have no health insurance. Paid about $2,400 out of pocket. Medicare, into which I’ve been paying since 1965, picked up about $20,000.

          • acat

            can currently be written off as pro bono per year?

            How much can a medical practice write down as a charitable donation and/or a business loss throughout the year?

            All those fellow patients … could they have been served *and* doctors made a profit doing so if more could be written off? What if other costs – malpractice insurance for instance – were lower?

            Throughout much of our country’s history, charity wards – profits written off, not-for-profit tax status, etc. – took care of those now in the E.R.

            Glad to see you’re okay, by the way.

            Mew

  • altexas

    Exactly right Daniel. I use the example of car insurance. I do not lose my car insurance when I leave an employer. I can shop among many companies and pick the level of coverage I want. The State (of Texas in my case) does require certain minimums, mostly to protect others who may be hurt with my vehicle. I can add certain options like car rental after an accident, apartment renters insurance and substantial medical coverage for myself. Thsi free market gives me a lot of options.

    Allowing my employer or Federal government to stick it’s hands in something as personal as my own healthcare is an insult and overreach of power.

    Allowing my employer to take a tax reduction for providing me health coverage but not allowing me the same tax break for health insurance I buy on my own is the Federal Government choosing winners and losers. No tax deduction is needed for my car insurance. I ask for none.

    I disagree this would take years to change. Just eliminate the tax deduction now. Get the Federal Government out of private health care and let the States or the people make their own adult decisions.

    • http://madisonproject.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      this can be done immediately and without a political price. The Medicare and tort reform stuff would take a long time and would unfortunately be rough sailing.

      • altexas

        We did pass tort reform in Texas after the typical long political/legal processs. The results were immediate, dramatic and positive. Doctors moved to Texas in droves. I have no data but suspect lawyers moved to other States as well. A fair trade if my guess is correct. :)

        Medicare and more obviously Medicaid rightfully belong to the States to regulate and administer. I argue that Medicare should be phased out completely over time. Promises need to be kept while the next generation of retirees prepares for other (free market) options.

        Medicaid is charity or welfare from the Government. It must be restricted to Governments that cannot go into debt. State or local Governments. Not Federal.

        Medicaid should not and cannot ever be first class,… damn the expense,… keep you alive forever health care. It should be compassionate and merciful but run realistically. If I am dying penniless, at least let me go in as little pain as possible. I will thank you for that. This kind of compassion must be local, as local as possible.

        Since this post is already buried in time, I will share a personal perspective. After my wife divorced me, I worked two jobs to make ends meet paying child support and lawyers fees. One job was caring for a quadriplegic girl with downs syndrome. She had a private apartment twice the size of what I lived in, 24 hour a day care (I was one of the shifts,) enhanced food stamps (for a special diet), transportation, medical care, utilities and cable paid ( I couldn’t afford cable) and many other lesser benefits.All paid for by tax dollars.

        The cost of her care went well over $100,000.00 a year. That was in the State of North Dakota with a population of less than 500,000. She was just one of many. The State had no real control over the expense because Federal regulations and several court orders insured her level of benefits.

        As much of a charm as she was and suspect still is, uncontrolled government costs are a violation of our control as the people over the state.

        A group home at least would have been more cost effective but Courts had made that impossible.

        I would add, her father was a very wealthy rancher and farmer in Minnesota worth millions. He had moved her to North Dakota thus separating her from his finances.

        There are people like this girl that need care only a community can afford. The Federal Government is not that community. States barely qualify as communities but should be the worst case scenario over more local options.

    • ss396

      You are dead-on for the car insurance argument. I think what fails in the health insurance argument is that much of our health care is not provided as insurance so much as it is under a buyer’s club type of program. By joining this or that buyer’s club, I get such-and-such discounts. The poor fools who don’t join a medical buyer’s club can’t afford its products.

      I also note that the discussion nowadays is over “health insurance.” It used to be over “medical insurance.” That little descriptive title change opened up a grand realm of meddlesome policies, programs, and costs. “Medical” means that I have a physician in attendance; “health” means that I’ve got a bunch of agenda-driven busybodies who are determined to watch out for my better interests, whether I want them to or not.

      • Dave_A

        Which is where the problem with the ‘buyers club’ model comes in…

        What if Sams or Costco had a policy where in return for a monthly membership fee, a member could get anything they wanted in the store for free once they bought a certain amount of merchandise….

        That’s the problem we have with health care right now… There is no incentive to NOT consume care.

        Further, what we have now is far more like the ‘medical insurance’ you describe – thanks to the ‘buyers club’ model you can live a life of near-suicidal health-choices and still pay the same amount for your policy as the health-nut in the next cubicle…

        We NEED to move to a model of what you called ‘health insurance’ where those ‘busy-bodies’ set your rate based on how you live your life…

        300lb whale-dude who can’t do a push-up because he can’t get his fat off the ground even with both arms locked out… Will be more expensive to insure, than a 200lb guy who can knock out 55 in 2 minutes… He should pay more for insurance.

        Just like Mr DUI vs ‘What’s a traffic ticket, I’ve never had one’ – who pays more for car insurance…..

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    doesn’t apply to conservatives either?

    • Bill S

    • acat

      And I’ve “only” changed jobs twice.

      Mew

      • Bill S

        for the first time in maybe 10 years. And it didn’t change THAT much – basically moved to a local Blue plan instead of the one at the mother ship office state. Same docs, etc. – but drug plan did change, and I think the coverage is actually better than it was before.

        My policy position right now is: Don’t screw with my insurance. Period.

        • acat

          now it’s not…. and while the monthly premium is the same, the provider list is a lot smaller, and the out-of-pocket is higher.

          Ironically, I had Blue Cross the whole time I was self-employed. Took a bit of work to “keep” it, but .. it can be done.

          One question. Does “screwing with your insurance” include asking you to pay for 100% of your group premium ?

          Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            If my company wants to pay 80% of it as a benefit, I don’t see the problem. People outta be able to buy insurance where from where they want, and the plan they want. It’s the liberals that are anti-choice when it comes to health insurance.

          • acat

            On one paw you state people should be able to buy their policies wherever they want, but on the other you say it’s fine for your employer to give you a gift of whatever 80% of your premium is.

            That creates a darn clear incentive to insurance companies to sell only to major corporations, going against your argument that it’s liberals who are anti-choice.

            Please let me know how you square this seeming circle.

            Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            If my company is large enough to get a discounted insurance rate, and they’re offering to pay part of my premiums as a benefit, and I like the coverage, why shouldn’t I be able to get it? If they don’t, I should be free to buy my own plan by shopping around. This of course requires removing the restriction to purchase across state lines, and being able to join any coop I want to. Less regulation is needed here, not more.

            Are you really saying you want to prohibit companies from offering insurance as a benefit? If you are, I want no part of that.

          • acat

            insurance as a benefit, Night’. But it’s income, and should be taxed as such.

            Until that happens, there is *zero* incentive for the system to change.

            Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            It should all be tax exempt. That would encourage more people to buy health insurance without needing a mandate.

          • acat

            without *vastly* simplifying the paperwork.

            Technically, insurance expenses are already tax deductible, but for an individual to claim the deduction requires setting up a “business” to purchase their insurance for them.

            It can be done, but .. the tax return about triples in length, needs a separate checking account, there’s IRS and State forms to file, etc. etc. Not for the faint of heart, and certainly not for most people who buy their own insurance.

            Simplifying the tax code would be helpful, but it doesn’t really address the problem that insurance is marketed to corporations, not people.

            Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Stop trying to take away my current insurance just because you don’t also have it.

            Honestly, this is quite simply the basic conservative vs. liberal argument. Do you want to guarantee equal opportunity (conservative) or equal outcome (liberal).

            The solution here is to remove current over-regulation, not add more.

          • Bill S

            Insurance is as much compensation as my paycheck. It ain’t no “gift”.

          • acat

            Perhaps you’d rather call it a “perquisite”…

            I call it “untaxed income”.

            Mew

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Untaxed income isn’t the same as a gift.

            I’m pretty sure if I grab a Dr. Pepper at work that I’m not taxed on it. But it’s something my employer provides because doing things like that keeps me happier *and* more productive.

            Employees who take ill can’t work. Employees whose families take ill are distracted at work.

            Just because the Tax Man can’t get his thieving mitts on a slice of it yet, doesn’t mean there’s something not right about it.

            Come on.

          • PowerToThePeople

            is how on, as he puts it, one paw he runs around proclaiming the evil of any form of government regulation or involvement but then turns around on here demanding government step in and end an age old practice of offering insurance as a benefit in order to gain better prospects and employees. Then he wants it taxed which is the biggest form of government there is.

            Wish he would make up his mind or just stick to litter boxes.

            And Dr Pepper…..really. I would have to find a new job if that trash was an offering. Now Mountain Dew on the other hand……..

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If it were up to me it’d be Mexican Coke, Mexican Pepsi, and Cheerwine, but compromises must be made for the whole office. :)

          • acat

            The Mexican import stuff is better, if you can find it.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            for that stuff here in Arizona.

          • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

            I admit my first thought was “cocaine doesn’t come from Mexico”. As for the dark brown sweet carbonated liquid from south of the border, our Costco used to have it all the time. Haven’t seen it lately though.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            good one

          • acat

            Ran into it in North Carolina, back in the day. Still look for it whenever I’m out that way.

            The local taqueria has Mexican soda bottles on ice, and is a good deal closer.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            but I am surprised you know of the drink considering it is a southern delicacy unknown by most people outside of the Carolinas, Georgia, some of TN and so on.

            I ship cases of the stuff to about 10 friends of mine who have lived here in SC due to not being able to get it where they are at. My buddy in MI goes through about 20 cases a year that either I supply or he picks up while he is here.

            It is great stuff. Only complaint, fizz dies too soon.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            It’s funny you mention that.

            In California I had a place I could get to once in a while that would stock a few bottles of Cheerwine. That’s how I ran into it.

            I figured hey, it’s from NC, moving to VA should make it easy to find right? Nope.

            If it wasn’t for a fellow RedStater who was nice enough to pick some up at a Wegman’s in Fairfax Co., I’d still have been Cheerwine-less since moving to VA about 6 weeks ago.

            So since moving, I’ve had to drink Mexican Coke and Throwback Pepsi, both in abundance at the Pentagon City Costco. I *once* was able to grab Jarritos Cola (a regular choice of mine in CA) at a place called Shoppers just across the river in Alexandria (I’m in Arlington), and a nearby Harris Teeter has had some Irn Bru (something I’d wanted to try for a while but never found in CA).

            Yes, I do my homework on beverages. :)

          • checkmate2012

            Googled it after the chatter & it sounds like Dr. Pepper? I found a website that you can order on-lone, including a diet one- yum!

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Though if you live in TX or can otherwise get it, Dublin Dr Pepper is good stuff.

            Cheerwine is what I describe as a cherry cream soda. It’s not a sweet fruity beverage, I’d say. It’s flavorful but it’s drinkable.

          • checkmate2012

            Cream soda is my fav and cherry to boot! Don’t like too much sugar so will try it. Thanks for the description!

            Also, 21 bucks for a case on cheerwine.com! I miss Yuengling beer that I had in FLA last winter & can’t get in TX even tho’ not a beer drinker. I found it on-line too. World Market wishes they could distribute it here in Dallas area.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            The shipping cost is brutal. :)

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Think cherry Dr. Pepper, then you’re closer.

            Don’t drink it warm though. It tastes like carbonated cough syrup. I preferred the cherry-lemon Sundrop at Whataburger when I lived in NC.

          • acat

            companies started offering perquisites like insurance and company cars because they couldn’t legally offer raises.

            The trouble is, there’s barely a market for health care outside corporate policies. In some States, insurance companies can’t even *offer* group policies to anything but an employer.

            One of the very few things the McCain campaign got right was raising the personal deduction by $5,000 but taxing health insurance premiums paid.

            Mew

            p.s. that Dr. Pepper is a write-off for your employer, just as your health coverage is, and nothing in McCain’s proposal changes that… it just opens the door to other possibilities.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            But businesses that want to train and retain talent have great incentives to offer medical insurance.

          • acat

            Leaves the incentive, but opens the door to competition from non-corporate entities.

            Corporate plans remain part of (taxable) compensation, but many – most – will still take them because they’re cheaper (for large companies that have very large groups) and simpler (companies large enough to have HR departments …) than other groups, so Bill S.’s request that nobody “mess with his insurance” stands.

            Non-corporate plans, however, become (more) possible…

            Mew

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            .

          • JSobieski

            It allowed people to purchase insurance with PREtax dollars. The plan did cap at a very high threshold the tax writeoff for businesses. Decoupling ie individual accounts is the only way to have market based reforms

          • acat

            compensates for the increase in income.

            NO tax increase.

            Mew

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I’m not a fan of John McCain. I was much more dissatisfied to have him as the nominee, than I am to have Mitt Romney as the nominee.

            So telling me it’s his plan does not make me trust it. :)

          • acat

            But… this one, I think he had right.

            By changing how insurance is sold – to individuals rather than corporations (note – the diary above alludes to this as well) – we get closer to a free market.

            Last time I checked, that’s a Good Thing.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            Adults like making their own decisions

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            And it’s not “the money.”

            Economies of scale come into play. Corporations can buy benefits in bulk and hand them out individually.

          • acat

            Why not a bowling league, if one of the members is good with bookkeeping?

            The “magic” is in groups – the bigger the group, the lower the individual cost for a policy. Suppose the Presbyterians want to offer policies to their members…

            Right now, this can’t happen, in part because of *the money*, and in part because of State laws that allow only employers to buy group plans.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            ending state health ins monopolies.

          • checkmate2012

            to lowering prices. Employee & gov’t plans distort the marketplace and incentivize insurers to raise prices artificially as they know the big guy or group, has more resources to pay.

          • acat

            I suppose it could work for health care as well.

            Mew

          • checkmate2012

            And yes tort does make a diff. I think it’s another lefty term to call it healthcare, which we’re all supposed to do individually, rather than insurance.

            I want insurance to cover a heart surgery, cancer, etc., the big stuff, but I don’t need healthcare for the flu or a sniffle. (if fairly healthy ya know). Hope you read my lengthy post as in now I get a discount b/c I don’t have insurance- go figure!

          • acat

            I’d like to see tort reform too….

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            and understand that damage caps will only help marginally. I also favor changing the burden of proof for ER cases. More later

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            ..

          • acat

            I’ve purchased insurance both through corporations and as a corporation. The only way to cover a couple of Mrs. Cat’s pre-existing conditions involved a Blue Cross group plan, and the only way to get *that* was to become a corporation.

            Mew

          • commonsenseobserver

            I mean, just transfer the tax credit to your employee or something?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          • commonsenseobserver

            Because of federal interference in favour of certain arrangements. Things broken on the federal level can only be fixed on the federal level, I guess.

          • commonsenseobserver

            And it is, at heart, a problem with the federal tax code, this flaw should be corrected, in which case states’ actions are moot.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            One problem is that interstate commerce on insurance is impeded. Something we can do in DC is to remove those impediments.

            But the states have a legitimate authority to regulate intrastate commerce. If we do’t like those regulations we should change them in state.

            Federalism: It’s good not just when it’s convenient.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            so that after the prices drop after a few years of interstate competition and less government regs. Then if need be we could even have a small safety net govt plan for the pre-existing crowd. But if would require radical reform,, time and transition plans.

          • JSobieski

            Under your logic, collectivism from economies of scale is better than the alternative. I disagree.

          • JSobieski

            Economies of scale can be achieved creating a marketplace by which individuals make decisions.

            The USSR thought that it was superior to the West in part because of the economies of scale argument—-only they were applying it to heavy industries.

            Insurance companies can provide economies of scale for different product offerings. Like a lot of consumer products, the really popular products will achieve economies of scale and the less popular products will not.

          • JSobieski

            For example, in the auto industry economies of scale are achieved on the seller side of the equation. Car companies can avail themselves to a market of individual consumers in relative freedom. Popular offerings benefit from economies of scale, while unpopular offerings cease being offered for long.

            There is no reason why health insurance can’t function similary. Frankly, it does function that way in terms of life insurance and in terms of auto insurance.

            Products implement economies of scale, and in competing with other producers, consumers get the benefits.

          • aesthete

            The logic behind ObamaCare (and single-payer healthcare) is that making a larger market regardless of quality and market incentives will make healthcare cheaper and better for everyone.

            Right now, the big problems with healthcare are for 1) the self-employed and those who work for smaller companies, and 2) middle class folks with pre-existing conditions. Both problems, IMO, could be greatly alleviated by decoupling healthcare from employment and by deregulating and requiring less minimums from health insurers. There are other steps we could take to make this transition easier, and to satisfy some of the other concerns that crop up on occasion: I am a big fan of Singapore’s system, but even something like Switzerland’s healthcare system would be a vast improvement in most ways over our current setup.

          • Bill S

            Fine. They want to tax it? I’ll have to pay an extra $60 a month or so. That’s a heck of a lot less than if I had to pay for it myself. And before you say “but Bill, then they could pay you more…” (as some naive politicians have claimed), you have to also be massively naive to think that a company would give across-the-board increases if they were to stop providing health insurance.

          • lineholder

            Proponents of O-care would love to be able to use this as a selling point.

            “After all, even if employer-dumping into the public health insurance exchange takes place, it will de-couple health insurance from employers, and in order to be competitive in the job market, employers will then automatically give across the board pay rate increases to compensate for the loss of insurance”

            With unemployment as high as it is, which the BLS figures don’t portray accurately, it’s an employer’s market not an employee’s market. And when it comes to a lot of front-line jobs, employer’s look at employee’s as being easily replaced. Counting on across the board pay increases is a snow job if there ever was one.

            But O-care does provide for a situation where health insurance premiums are post-tax. I don’t see how this is really going to help people very much, but hey, if you really want it to be taxed….

          • aesthete

            in the short term is silly… but in the long-term, that (and increased employment) are exactly what happens. The ideal wage from the employers’ perspective is $0/hr, with no benefits. The same mechanisms which prevent wages from dropping that low raise compensation if there was a market equilibrium at a given wages+benefits point.

          • lineholder

            But I don’t think it holds true for all job position. Not even in the long-run sense.

            The idea of across-the-board pay increases is just misleading.

          • aesthete

            or other significant barriers preventing wages from reaching equilibrium, market pressures are going to result in increased wages, alternative forms of labor compensation, or increased employment in industries which decide to move away from offering healthcare (cetirus paribus, of course).

            FWIW, this phenomena has been documented in many countries where single-payer healthcare or other forms of decoupling from employer provision have been attempted (though single payer is of course a terrible way of doing this for other reasons).

          • lineholder

            explain how it works.

            Granted, the comments I made above were made with current circumstances in mind, i.e. we’ve lost a net of 5 million jobs in 3 years, average expendable income of the consumer has dropped putting on the edge of a demand side crisis, and I just can’t see businesses expanding unless the demand exists, Which I’m not at all sure that it would be. So, taking all of that consideration, I think it’s more likely that businesses would restructure, possibly providing upper level employees with compensation for any loss of income that might result. But lower level, front line employees…no. I can’t see compensation forthcoming on that point because demand is low, unemployment is high and it’s an employer’s market.

            But I’d like to hear how what you’re talking about works…how it unfolds, one step leading to another. Because if it holds true, then it could be boon for all of us right now.

          • aesthete

            With current circumstances in mind, the most likely effect would not be a wage increase (at least, not in most sectors) until the end of the recession. That is because labor markets are not in equilibrium; labor markets are “sticky”, because unlike markets in other goods, it’s not easy to lower prices on the desired good. A corporation can choose to sell its peanut butter at a lower price when demand goes down to reach a new equilibrium price. For many reasons (both laws and stickiness that also exists in the free market), your boss can’t come up to you and say, “I’m going to lower your wages by a third; deal with it or quit”. This phenomena contributes to increased and persistent unemployment during recessions.To make a long story short, to the extent that “stickiness” doesn’t impede cut benefits, the result of a benefit cut that would be accepted by employees would be lower wages in certain sectors, but also a reduced rate of unemployment (or at the very least, a slowing down of the rise in unemployment).

            It gets tricky to look at these things when one factors in recession conditions, and I’ll note that my background is in microeconomics, not macro. I just wanted to address the general notion that employers in a normal market generally do not simply raise prices on a whim; as with any other price set in a free market, wages in a free market under normal conditions reflect a bargain between employees and employers, and adjust as the result of mediation between these two market forces — not on account of the greed or altruism of employers.

          • lineholder

            Absolutely. In a stable market, things would be vastly different.

            But since we have an unstable market…that’s what makes the line of logic being used by O-care proponents that much more misleading to people. That’s the point I was trying to draw attention to.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            basically you get growth through business investment. Business will invest when the outlook is right. In the middle of a recession there is resistance to new investment, but even in a depressed economy, if you make a good product or service people will buy it. Witness the fact that Apple cannot keep up with demand for it’s products even during the worst part of the crises.

            To me it all comes down to market psychology, and nothing says BOO to the markets like taxes, spending, and class warfare.

          • aesthete
          • acat

            but recognizing insurance as part of income and increasing the individual deduction increases competition in the marketplace. Last time I checked, that’s still a good thing, eh?

            No “across the board wage increases”. No tax increase for you, either. (in fact, the way McCain proposed it, it’s a net tax *cut* for everyone currently in what Dave_A describes as a “catastrophic plan”)

            Smaller companies may stop offering health insurance overall, which would suck for some employees, but .. again, increased competition among insurance companies and the tax break should address it.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            because you could buy only the specific stuff that you wanted rather than simply picking the best option that your employer makes available.

            If employer purchasing power is so great, why not let employers (or other collective forces) organize how cars, houses, and other items are purchased?

            The key to a competitive marketplace is competition, which would be best served if individuals shopped for their own coverage. Economies of scale can form on the seller-side just as much as they can on the buyer-sider—–look at the PC industry.

          • Common_Cents

            1. who pays
            2. making healthcare efficient/lowering cost

            obamacare deals with #1 and that’s it. Even the term health insurance is misused. What we are really talking about is paying for total health care.

            Centralized mandated health care has no competition, there are no incentives to create solutions or become efficient. Only rationing is left to deal with shortfalls.

            Costs will skyrocket because we don’t address lowering total cost by efficiencies, just brute force centralized planning thru rules and regulations which just lead to skyrocketing costs that get spread out to everyone.

            Even at the patient level there is no incentive to be involved. Listen to a group of seniors at breakfast, they are talking about their $20k hip surgeries like nothing but try and short change them a quarter at the checkout counter and you’ll get caned.

            You get this same effect when you are out to dinner with a group of friends. When everyone pitches in for the bill, it is almost guaranteed you are short. Everyone swears they are pitching in more than their fair share but give much less thought to the final tab when ordering all the goodies and extra drinks beforehand.

        • JSobieski

          “Don’t screw with X” is politically impossible to overcome.

          If 50% of RedState can’t see the flaws in coupling 20% of the economy such that employers make decision on behalf of employers through 4th parties—-healthcare aint gonna be fixed in my lifetime.

          If economies of scale are so key, why not just go single payer?

          Giving individuals the same ability to purchase insurance as employers would do so much for creating an actual marketplace. Otherwise, Obamacare, government option, and single payer will be inevitable.

          We either believe in markets as the best tools for keeping costs under control, or we embrace some kind of death penals.

          • Common_Cents

            As you point out, don’t really work in the situation of socialized group pay. In the case of dining out w/ a group of friends, economies of scale does not lower per person cost of dinner even though there are 12 of you at the table. Incentive is lessened to watch what you order even though the bill will come due.

  • renl57

    …is the direct result of having your health care tied to your employer.

    Every time there’s a recession, many workers get laid off and lose their employer-provided health insurance. If they have already contracted some chronic medical condition while they were working, they may now find that they cannot purchase individual health insurance at any price because of their “pre-existing condition.”

    This trap is also sprung on a worker with a chronic medical condition, who wishes to quit working for an employer and start his own business. He can’t get individual health insurance now.

    If they could take their health insurance with them when they got laid off, they could pay the premiums themselves while looking for other employment. No need to apply for a new policy and risk being turned down for pre-existing condition or other reasons.

    This would solve about 75% of the pre-existing condition problem. The remaining 25% involves adults who already developed a chronic medical condition in their youth before ever getting their first job. This would include young people born with Type 1 diabetes, leukemia, etc. That part of the pre-existing condition problem would need to be addressed separately.

    • ss396

      I don’t know how many folks who have pre-existing conditions are under one insurance program or another. I suspect that the number is far from insignificant. What I don’t understand is why they should be prevented from moving from one insurance provider to another.

      The insurance company that cannot take on someone who has a pre-existing condition as a new customer likely also has a number of existing customers who are simultaneously prevented from moving off of their insured lists to another provider.

      If an insured person has a pre-existing condition, moving from one insurance provider to another is a savings to one of them, and a cost to the other. That makes this a zero-sum balancing of insurance liabilities across the providers. If customers were allowed to move freely among them, how much would the liabilities of each individual insurance provider actually change? Some customers would move off of their rolls, while other customers would move onto their rolls. I see no reason to suspect, if the insurance enrollment was opened, that there would be a great migration of folks with pre-existing conditions to a specific insurance provider in numbers to overwhelm that provider?s insurance model.

      If that is true, opening enrollment to accept pre-existing conditions shouldn’t change the price of insurance at all, in that these costs are already priced into the insurance premiums somewhere. Insurance providers already have existing customers with pre-existing conditions.

      Granted, the zero-sum aspect is short term, but insurance contracts are written for annual terms. During that time, the changes to liabilities should be very nearly zero-sum. Furthermore, if one insurance provider finds itself being unduly “loaded up” with a bunch of costly care, well, these companies have armies of actuaries who are adept at determining the additional burden. If necessary, there is nothing to prevent insurance companies from transferring costs and collected premiums among themselves, as people move from one provider to another.

      Regarding those with pre-existing conditions who are not insured, the cost of that is already in the hospital cost models.

      In short, the pre-existing condition restriction is a straw man.

      • altexas

        Insurance is not charity. Insurance is a gamble on the part of the insurer and the insured. Insurance companies gamble they will make money by taking in more money than they pay out. Insured gamble they will be covered for more than they would otherwise be able to afford.

        If I already have terminal lung cancer but no insurance, there is no gamble. I just want someone else to pay my bills. Same with HIV, diabetes, etc. That is looking for charity.

        The argument that insurance companies already have people with those disieses does not fly because, the insurance company has lost that particular gamble. They make it up if necessary by raising their rates across the board.

        Look at the title to this comment. My house is on fire, time to get insurance. That is the way a lot of people would deal with insurance. They would wait until they get sick to get covered. Insurance companies would cease to exist. If you are willing to start insuring people with pre-existing conditions, by all means do so.

        • ss396

          Typically under existing law and policies, you don’t buy health insurance at the last minute. There is an enrollment period every year. If you choose to not enroll, insurance is closed to you for the year. If you want to risk not having insurance for the year, that’s your decision. That also means that either you will take the financial hit if, against your hopes and judgement, you do have a major medical event, or you submit yourself to the loving care of the emergency room. You become a charity case. If you chose to not attend to your health, and made a game of it until your lung cancer could no longer be overlooked, and is now terminal, yes – you can go to the emergency room and have someone else pay for it. I hope you like their care.

          Yes, the emergency rooms are considerably more expensive than regular office care. But emergency rooms are also experts on triage. So if you need to take your child in for a broken arm, or a diagnosis of a hacking cough, or a widespread allergy rash, you might sit there for the next ten hours until you finally get treated, because it is just not major enough until they get everyone else treated. And while you sit there. listening to your child cry, you might contemplate the efficacy of your decision to about buying insurance.

          There is a statistic that gets overlooked in the whole argument of delaying to purchase insurance. We are told time and again that there are 40-million uninsured people in the US. Out of a population north of 330-million, that means that some 88% of the population carries insurance – without a mandate, and without waiting until the last minute.

        • garfieldjl

          Things like Lung Cancer for instance is entirely different from something that one is born with, or something that they have had from childhood.

          There needs to be a grace period for insurance companies that they don’t have to cover a pre-existing condition for X number of years (let’s say 5), with an exception to a long-term documented condition that said individual is switching off their parent’s insurance for their new employer’s insurance for instance.

          That would make it so someone that just got diagnosed with lung cancer for instance, can’t suddenly get insurance and expect the insurance company to pay the bill, while not discriminating against those that have had a pre-existing condition from childhood.

          I’ve also heard of some incredibly stupid checks to try to claim people are no longer disabled (primarily by the Government), such as having someone whom had literally lost both his eyes go to an eye doctor to test to see if his vision has improved. Yeah there needs to be vigilience to catch fraud, but they need to practice some common sense.

  • Dave_A

    Spot on.

    Shift the tax-deduction for health-insurance off employers and to individuals -and make it only apply for individual or family coverage (not for ‘group plans’ – to prevent employers from switching out of providing group insurance to selling group insurance)…

    Once you get rid of group insurance, and make health insurance like car insurance…

    Costs will go down – both because insurance buyers can be charged more for costly lifestyle choices (overweight, drug-user, smoker, drinker)….

    And because more people will buy less-inclusive policies and opt to pay for routine care out of pocket – thus creating a buyer-seller relationship between docs & patients for ‘simple’ things like annual physicals….

    • acat

      The current upper limit is adequate – for a small family with no routine needs – but it’s high enough that it becomes inconvenient if anyone has an expensive prescription or needs more than routine dental work, etc. etc.

      Let me put up to 10% of my gross income in an HSA. Not that I *will*, but .. that makes it more appealing to the middle class, and it makes paying for routine care ‘out of pocket’ more appealing.

      Mew

      • Dave_A

        Is that you can’t have a HSA with anything more than catestrophic-coverage insurance…

        And if you have a FSA, you forfiet all the money at the end of the year, with a $4,000 limit.

        Neither of which is much good for the current pooled market…

        HOWEVER, in an individual-insurance market, the easiest thing to do would be remove the limit from the FSA vehicle, and use it as a health-insurance purchasing account (since we know how much insurance will cost per year, the ‘forfiet the money’ thing doesn’t cause a problem, as the only thing going in the account will be insurance money)…

        Personally, I’d take the FSA, remove the limit, and allow employers to contribute on behalf of employees, but prohibit FSA funds from being used to purchase group-plan insurance.

        You’d then have the ‘comfortable appearance’ of the way things were (employers could still use contributions to employee health insurance as a tax-free benefit), but each employee would buy their own policy.

        Kind of like the evolution from pensions to 401(k)s.

        • acat

          At the end of the year, what’s in an FSA is gone.
          At the end of the year, what’s in an HSA is still there.

          The only use for FSAs is for people who know exactly what they’re going to spend, who have very predictable medical expenses. For everyone else, HSAs make more sense.

          Mew

          • Dave_A

            However, I’d put insurance premiums in the ‘exactly what you’re going to spend’ category.

            The HSA system, as written, requires that you do not carry anything but catastrophic coverage. Those who want a more complete insurance package (eg a traditional HMO or PPO) can’t use HSAs.

            Now, if we raise the cap on HSAs and remove the restrictions on what kind of insurance can be carried… Then the rationale for even having FSAs goes away (Which I’d be fine with)…

            But as it stands, the FSA is the better vehicle for paying insurance premiums (since they are a fixed cost). .

          • acat

            My last three plans have been “catastrophic”, under your definition, because I’ve had an HSA for each of them..

            Perhaps there’s something I’m missing but .. I had an FSA. Once. Won’t ever go back.

            Mew

          • Dave_A

            Which requires that you have a ‘high deductable health plan’ to have an HSA.

            With my current employer’s recent change of HR contractors, we just went through the whole process yet again, and they were quite clear that you couldn’t do an HSA if you did the normal PPO.

            From the wording of the law, that appears to be the intent of Congress as well – to create a new approach to health care where you pay for most expenses with HSA money & use insurance for severe situations only….

          • JSobieski

            The bank won’t let you (because of the law).

          • texasref

            Can you still open an HSA, provided you have a high-deductible plan? If yes, must you transfer the HRA funds into the HSA? Is the maximum contributable amount affected by the amount of the HRA?

          • JSobieski

            You can’t use HRA monies to purchase insurance, fund an HSA, or do anything else.

            HRA’s are classic Obama—someone else (the employer) calls all the shots. An HRA can be cancelled at any time.

            The key to getting costs under control is NOT to further insulate people from all costs. The purpose of an HRA is cover deductibles. No doubt popular politically, but bad policy if you want to see health reform.

          • texasref

            nt

          • JSobieski

            nt

    • lineholder

      I wish we could, but it just doesn’t work that way because of reimbursement rates.

      Government health insurance reimbursement rates run lower than market price, especially in regards to Medicaid. The health care industry has been using private health insurance reimbursement rates to offset government health insurance reimbursement rates for years. Since the 1970s. Becoming even more predominant after capitation and PPS were put into place.

      I’m not saying that the idea isn’t a good one…I’m only saying that you can’t necessarily count on rates dropping just by going to individual rather than group policies.

      • checkmate2012

        All gov’t programs increase the rate of whatever their involved in…see my post below.

        I believe we should help the poorest in our great country but our poor are wealthy compared to other standards, but I digress. Medicare, Medicaid, SS, are all programs that have exceeded their initial bounds.

        We need to get gov’t out of all but that which is enumerated, and let charity take over like it used to be. Gov’t intervention raises the costs for all.

        If our social nets didn’t consume our national spending, we could have border control and a strong military at a fraction of the cost of social programs.

        • lineholder

          changed dramatically when the principle of charitable immunity was replaced by the laws pertaining to corporate liability via the Darling vs. Charleston case.

          A lot of charities won’t take on those kinds of responsibilities now because of the potential for a lawsuit.

          I’m not deliberately playing devil’s advocate on this…there’s just more to it than it seems.

          • checkmate2012

            In that gov’t makes all worse & we’ve lost our way. Gov’t needs to get out of the way in so many ways and our cost would be cheaper- see below for a better explanation. Devil’s advocate is useful IMO :)

          • lineholder

            I wish we could go back in that direction myself. And I’d support getting government out of this as much as we can.

            There are just so many different factors that play into the situation. It looks like it should be easy to make the kinds of changes we need on the surface. But when we start looking at the details, then it becomes more difficult.

            I’ll throw in a detail here that a lot of people aren’t aware of. The lag time in government health insurance reimbursement payments is two years. Hospitals are getting paid this year for services rendered two years ago.

            And for some of the larger integrated health care organizations, their revenue cycle can run into 7 figures per day!

            They get touchy when you start talking about making changes where private health insurance is concerned, because that’s what they depend on where turn-around time for revenues is concerned.

            So, if we want to change this, and I mean really change it, we’d have to come up with a plan that takes all the factors into consideration.

          • checkmate2012

            detail. I agree changes won’t happen overnight but think it’s better to rip the bandaid off than peel slowly. In the case of gov’t subsidized healthcare, give it a 5-4-3-2-1 approach, yr 1 being all are on notice.

  • checkmate2012

    I’m so glad you wrote this post and think it is excellent especially pointing out the historical basis of employee provided insurance which I didn’t even know. To me, I didn’t need to know the history to know that it’s a bad policy and it was the beginning of the end as is the case whenever gov’t gets involved.

    Anytime gov’t subsidizes something or just gets involved, be it ethanol, healthcare, sugar, tuition, solar panels, nuts & bolts for airplanes (the list goes on), the cost increases. If a market or supplier knows the gov’t is the buyer, they increase the price exponentially, Why not, the gov’t has unlimited resources or so it seems; thus our national debt.

    My point is that we should eliminate employer provided healthcare altogether and the price would drop immediately. Individuals & families should buy it on their own, across state lines and quit the pseudo monopolies.

    Case in point. I was layed off and when I see my awesome doctor now in N. Tex, I get a 20% discount for being a non-insured cash customer. Weird huh? Not really as they don’t have to file all the paperwork.

    Lastly, healthcare “insurance” has been basterdized into paying for, “I have a cold”. And not many that have employee subsidized insurance care about what the real price is, just what their co-pay is. A $50 aspirin is not noticed. Insurance should be for catastrophic events (OCare specifically eliminated these type of policies btw), not a common cold. The price would drop like a rock if we’d all pay for little ills and insured against a fire or flood like cancer. We don’t need insurance for minor aches and pains.

    Per Websters:
    “Definition of INSURANCE
    1 a: the business of insuring persons or property b: coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c: the sum for which something is insured’

    Peril being the key word, not a minor fever.

  • kzimm

    I agree with your general point that the major flaw with the system is that “patients don?t pay for their health care directly” and that the current legislation does not fix that. That is why it upsets me that you start with distorted facts. The wage controls put in place in the 40′s were removed at the end of WWII, and then controls were put in place again in 1950 for the Korean War, but then removed in 1953. By 1950 most Americans were already covered by employer provided health care. Since 1954, when the tax credit was added, the percent of Americans covered by employer provided health insurance has gone DOWN.

    Also, the health insurance costs, as with all health care costs, ARE tax deductible by an individual if/when they exceed 7.5% of your income.

    • garfieldjl

      Yeah there is a problem with people not paying for their healthcare directly, this is a rather tough balancing act.

      There are also little items that people normally don’t consider, for instance, some people literally cannot take generic versions of a medication without having a serious reaction to said generic. Medications aren’t like nuts and bolts for a machine that you can just go out and easily substitute plus ever person is slightly different.

      People try to go to doctors that know what they are doing and have experience. I don’t think this is a bad thing, particularly as someone on the Spectrum that also has Attention Deficit Disorder, there are more than a few quacks out there that you have to be on your guard against.

      The entire health industry is a mess currently, and a lot of that has to do with government. The situation is only going to be made worse due to Obamacare. Between junk lawsuits, illegal immigrants getting free healthcare, regulation stupidity, etc. it’s no wonder health care costs are skyrocketing.

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: http://www.letmewatchthis.mn/watch-movies/2012/watch-the-campaign-2012/

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: sexy lady

  • Pingback: wholesale nike air jordans

  • Pingback: ball chairs

  • Pingback: Magnetic Tags Remover

  • Pingback: Better sex

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: jak szybko schudnac

  • Pingback: Make money online

  • Pingback: fat burning

  • Pingback: diablo 3 gold

  • Pingback: How to fight

  • Pingback: about yoga

  • Pingback: Exercise taxes

  • Pingback: Mary Kay Intouch

  • Pingback: gemstone

  • Pingback: where to buy phen375

  • Pingback: Marketing Digital

  • Pingback: moncler Pas cher

  • Pingback: sunglasses

  • Pingback: gay cam chat

  • Pingback: cheap viagra

  • Pingback: marble polishing

  • Pingback: make money fast online

  • Pingback: Electric Mini Guitar

  • Pingback: spinning text

  • Pingback: How To Make Youtube Videos

  • Pingback: Download Quickbooks

  • Pingback: Nikon 1 V2

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg seo consultant singapore

  • Pingback: l-tyrosine

  • Pingback: fly fishing

  • Pingback: KSL Squaw

  • Pingback: squirrel feeders

  • Pingback: I thought about this

  • Pingback: aranzacje nowoczesnych wnetrz

  • Pingback: a fantastic read

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: Discover More

  • Pingback: mulberry alexa handbag

  • Pingback: software toko program kasir terbaik

  • Pingback: weblink

  • Pingback: high intensity training

  • Pingback: gratis online rubrikkannonser

  • Pingback: paleo recipe book

  • Pingback: camere foto profesionale

  • Pingback: leapfrog leappad explorer

  • Pingback: over here

  • Pingback: zerit generic

  • Pingback: google sniper affiliate

  • Pingback: ugg boots pas cher

  • Pingback: Lainaa

  • Pingback: rank site SEO

  • Pingback: mastercard casino

  • Pingback: Make money Youtube video

  • Pingback: christian louboutin

  • Pingback: learn more here

  • Pingback: sushi catering boston

  • Pingback: Wally Eakes

  • Pingback: stables

  • Pingback: paleo dessert recipes

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: web design

  • Pingback: best legal steroids

  • Pingback: he has a good point

  • Pingback: majorg33k

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: buy synthol

  • Pingback: buy synthol

  • Pingback: the best legal steroids

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Trade In Wheels

  • Pingback: hp battery

  • Pingback: Stan Avitabile

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: gay

  • Pingback: estate agents glasgow

  • Pingback: check my website

  • Pingback: induce astral projection

  • Pingback: supply chain risk management

  • Pingback: green coffee bean extracts

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: escorts leeds.

  • Pingback: see

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: homes for sale in Downtown Indianapolis

  • Pingback: escorts leeds.

  • Pingback: click the following website

  • Pingback: steam showers

  • Pingback: people search,

  • Pingback: sony battery

  • Pingback: people search

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: swissdent

  • Pingback: 2013 honda civic si redesign

  • Pingback: Product Digest

  • Pingback: Product Reviews

  • Pingback: Celebrity Pics

  • Pingback: IOC Council

  • Pingback: Green Life Blog

  • Pingback: make the future now

  • Pingback: jeux

  • Pingback: jeuxjeuxjeux

  • Pingback: junk car milwaukee

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claims

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: mortgage help

  • Pingback: click to visit

  • Pingback: toronto plumbers

  • Pingback: PPI Claims

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: Fuck you.

  • Pingback: Fuck you.

  • Pingback: Fuck you

  • Pingback: Fuck you

  • Pingback: Business Advertising Directory

  • Pingback: velkoborsky.

  • Pingback: velkoborsky

  • Pingback: Nikon v2

  • Pingback: Home Decor

  • Pingback: tas branded murah

  • Pingback: kc1.info

  • Pingback: sushi delivery Somerville ma

  • Pingback: garage doors melbourne.

  • Pingback: garage doors perth.

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors.

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors

  • Pingback: tumblr followers

  • Pingback: the stables towneley park,

  • Pingback: Orlando Web Design

  • Pingback: casino,

  • Pingback: facebook blog

  • Pingback: Phone Reviews

  • Pingback: amarillo tree.

  • Pingback: amarillo tree

  • Pingback: amarillo tree

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: amarillo tree.

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: lecteur datamatrix

  • Pingback: ipage complaints

  • Pingback: ipage complaints

  • Pingback: gambling

  • Pingback: (visit site)

  • Pingback: 123 mold testing

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: ipage customer reviews

  • Pingback: active instagram followers

  • Pingback: Deliver my Dumpster

  • Pingback: mls inmobiliarias

  • Pingback: "???"

  • Pingback: Delivermydumpster

  • Pingback: startoption

  • Pingback: banque Bordier

  • Pingback: samsung galaxy s3

  • Pingback: free annual credit report

  • Pingback: http://landofnodcoupons.weebly.com/

  • Pingback: http://babiesrusregistry.weebly.com/

  • Pingback: http://targetbabyregistry.weebly.com/

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: Darryl Domiano

  • Pingback: lol jungle tips

  • Pingback: cheap cell phone service

  • Pingback: pirater facebook

  • Pingback: pirater facebook

  • Pingback: pirater facebook

  • Pingback: work from home

  • Pingback: pc dial

  • Pingback: credit cards

  • Pingback: eames dsw

  • Pingback: chat

  • Pingback: hair loss stress treatment

  • Pingback: gigi spice video

  • Pingback: Medical Practice Marketing

  • Pingback: buy my car scam

  • Pingback: natural depersonalization treatment

  • Pingback: Harley Dyse

  • Pingback: 3D Mod

  • Pingback: Product Reviews

  • Pingback: lida ile zayiflama

  • Pingback: website logo

  • Pingback: http://nastysocia860.livejournal.com/2614.html

  • Pingback: snel afvallen

  • Pingback: she said

  • Pingback: kitchen designs