|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States41980 Posts
On September 10 2015 12:51 Buckyman wrote:
1) Federal government takes my health hostage to get the state to change its laws
2) The state refuses to cooperate
3) Blame the state?
No, I'm blaming the federal government for causing the problem in the first place.
Sorry, you're a 45 year old who makes less than 11k per year and you're mad that you're spending so much of your take home pay on your healthcare? What are you, a communist? Might as well complain that you're spending so much of your take home pay on food, or on housing. Newsflash, the problem isn't the government, the problem is that you somehow earn less than a McDonald's employee, less than a kid with a paper round. Hell, you make less than you could make doing surveys online while watching porn from your bed. Healthcare is expensive. Particularly in America. The per capita cost of healthcare in America in 2013 was $9140. You're so poor you can't afford healthcare and the healthcare you have is still subsidized by the government.
Maybe stop being mad at the government for only helping you with the cost rather than paying for everything for you while you create so little of value that you can't scrape by.
|
Taking refugees makes no sense to me. Compared to the thousands of dying African kids we let rot every day, what makes these Syrians so special? Syria is hype in the news, so we take thousands of them? Makes no sense. If countries around the world are going so nuts over the injustice of Syria, why is a bunch of African kids dying every day not a big deal?
|
On September 10 2015 13:39 KwarK wrote:
Sorry, you're a 45 year old who makes less than 11k per year and you're mad that you're spending so much of your take home pay on your healthcare?.
No. I'm mad that I'm spending so much of my take home pay on my nonexistent healthcare.
P.S. Your per capita numbers are skewed by the over-70 crowd.
|
On September 10 2015 13:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 12:51 Buckyman wrote:
1) Federal government takes my health hostage to get the state to change its laws
2) The state refuses to cooperate
3) Blame the state?
No, I'm blaming the federal government for causing the problem in the first place. Well, if you're going to blame the federal government, blame the Supreme Court for deciding that suddenly holding Medicaid, or in general large federal to stage funding hostage (which had been done multiple times before) was not possible. Seriously, there's no way the people in Congress could have anticipated that decades of precedent would be thrown out. That was how pretty much any Medicaid change was implemented as far as I know.
Except that a large % of States didn't accept the Medicaid program to begin with, and its implementation took several years, and there was clear precedent on it that it couldn't be overly coercive, plus the evidence that those "decades of precedent" were actually not in accordance with the Constitution, and were merely a sort of judicial abdication on economic matters.
But I do agree with you on a point, that the doughnut hole was a result that could easily be anticipated, meaning that there is a fundamental flaw in the decision: That the Medicaid Expansion was severable from the law as a whole. (By the way, it was 7-2 against the mandatory expansion).
|
On September 10 2015 14:09 Mohdoo wrote:
Taking refugees makes no sense to me. Compared to the thousands of dying African kids we let rot every day, what makes these Syrians so special? Syria is hype in the news, so we take thousands of them? Makes no sense. If countries around the world are going so nuts over the injustice of Syria, why is a bunch of African kids dying every day not a big deal?
We fucked up the Middle East. We didn't fuck up Africa (that was Europe did that).
(Though I'm in favor of taking in refugees categorically.)
|
That article said the increase was not only Syria, in fact it stated that one of the places it was going to increase was also from the Democratic Republic of Congo so they are also increasing taking people in from Africa.
|
On September 10 2015 14:28 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 13:39 KwarK wrote:
Sorry, you're a 45 year old who makes less than 11k per year and you're mad that you're spending so much of your take home pay on your healthcare?. No. I'm mad that I'm spending so much of my take home pay on my nonexistent healthcare. P.S. Your per capita numbers are skewed by the over-70 crowd.
Err, I kinda have to agree with Kwark's point. What do you do as a 45 year old that nets 11K a year? Do you do some sort of contract work or what?
|
On September 10 2015 14:46 ticklishmusic wrote:Err, I kinda have to agree with Kwark's point. What do you do as a 45 year old that nets 11K a year? Do you do some sort of contract work or what?
There are *reasons*. I don't want to talk about them here. They are both personal and off topic.
|
United States41980 Posts
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control.
|
Okay, fine. I'm recovering from an addiction, and as a result of my history am having trouble finding a quality (full time + above minimum wage) job despite devoting a massive amount of continuing effort to searching for one. Is that enough information?
-------
Back on topic, what would be the consequences if I didn't have any health insurance?
|
^That's an interesting point about how the penalty is taken... so effectively if you *can't afford* insurance because of low income, you don't have to pay the penalty. I guess if your employer does automatic withholding in a weird way (where they assume your annualized earnings are much high) you might end up having an amount sent to the government from which the penalty could be deducted that would otherwise be a tax refund.
Technically you'd owe $325, but since there's nothing to take $325 from you wouldn't have to pay it. That's my understanding anyways, maybe KwarK can confirm if that's right.
I have very little advice to give far as a job search goes, but what kind of skills do you have? Do you have a degree? Would you consider trying to develop additional skills or going back to school?
|
On September 10 2015 15:18 ticklishmusic wrote:Technically you'd owe $325, but since there's nothing to take $325 from you wouldn't have to pay it. That's my understanding anyways, maybe KwarK can confirm if that's right.
My understanding is that withholding kicks in somewhere around $7k for an individual, and that I'd need to pay the penalty via another mechanism if I'd earned even less. But it's irrelevant because the 'unsubscribe' button doesn't work.
I have very little advice to give far as a job search goes, but what kind of skills do you have? Do you have a degree? Would you consider trying to develop additional skills or going back to school?
Skills that my industry contacts say are in high demand, yes, and already tried that, respectively. My primary job skills aren't the real issue. (E) And, as I said earlier I don't want to discuss the real issue here.
|
United States41980 Posts
Fill out a W4 and write EXEMPT on it in big letters. The withholding isn't an outside force, either you tell HR what it should be or HR guess.
You owe no Federal taxes and on 11k you can't afford to be sending them that money. Hell, I earn many times that and I don't owe any Federal taxes.
Also no, Obamacare uses IRS refund garnishing, and only IRS refund garnishing, to enforce the penalties. No other methods. They will not garnish wages or seek any kind of action against you.
Also you could claim an exemption anyway. Health insurance costs too much of your income, you qualify for an exemption on those grounds.
They really did think of people like you when framing it. You are just ignorant of how it works.
|
On September 10 2015 09:53 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 08:47 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'. I am pretty sure everyone just wants her to let her office issue marriage licences. People said she should be jailed because she defied the court order and she works for the Court. You're continued efforts to try to make it about "a disagreement of opinion" completely disingenuous. She had her disagreement of opinion and it when before highest court in the country. She lost. All things are possible, though I find your argument here to be highly improbable. Why was she not issued the reasonable religious accommodation that she asked for, namely that another clerk be deputized and be able to issue licenses without her name on them, and not under her explicit authority? She has the right for reasonable accommodations, just like every other American, and yes, that includes Muslims too (I know you did not bring up that point, but many others in real life discussions have). I would be appalled if a Muslim man or woman was imprisoned because of his or her religious beliefs. Imprisoning her was and is a terrible crime, and a grave injustice. The could have easily solved this without imprisoning her. She specifically requested an accommodation in a letter to the court, so if this was all about homosexuals being able to be married, then why imprison her, rather than granting a completely reasonable request for her. It is so obviously a political punishment, especially when you take the context into account. Some photographers and bakers do not want to put their artistic talents in support of a gay-marriage, often citing religious objections. They don't want to be morally associated with it because they have a deeply held (if flawed) belief that doing so risks the displeasure of God. Instead of the gay couple being reasonable and going somewhere else, they invariably bring suit, usually with hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Even more revealingly, they will often offer to withdraw the suit if the religious person simply performs the service and provides the support. And we are not talking about grocery stores or gas stations, where no one can reasonably claim a religious objection. No mainstream code of ethics or religious tenets forbid the sale of gasoline or candy bars to homosexuals. Many mainstream religions do, however, forbid the moral support of such unions. Distinguishing between simply doing business with an individual who happens to be homosexual and actively/openly supporting the lifestyle. Where the gray area comes in is that many people do consider artistic expression to be closely tied to the moral aspect of humanity. I think most people would agree that painting and selling a picture of a rose is wholly different than standing in a check-out line at a grocery store. Creativity and artistic expression is especially important to many religious people, as they consider that to be a divine gift specifically granted to them for the purpose of glorifying God. To ask them to use that talent in support of what they percieve as an immoral cause is quite literally to ask them to damn themselves, according to their honestly held beliefs. We might disagree with those beliefs, but we cannot rightly ignore the conviction with which they are believed and the spiritual anguish a person might feel if they violate a core tenet of their religion. Kim Davis has been ordered to personally authorize a gay-marriage, to literally put her signature on her own death warrant. As far as she is concerned, she is being offered a choice of unemployment, imprisonment, or damnation. I could possibly see the point if she were not asking for a simple accommodation, and if that accommodation were not very easy to grant. But they have refused to grant her the accommodation, instead requiring her to personally show support. Just like the baker's (one of whom offered the gay-couple a generic cake, which they refused. Another offered to refer them to another baker, again they refused.) These people are not being punished because they are preventing homosexuals from getting married, having their pictures taken, or eating decorated cakes. There are countless bakers who will have no problems with baking a gay-couple a cake for their marriage, there are countless photographers who will work at a gay wedding, and there could are dozens of county-clerks who are willing to sign licenses (four deputy-clerks in that county are willing, none of these could be deputized?). They are being punished for being against the marriage. Hence the uproar and threats to a pizzeria in the middle of nowhere, not because they denied a gay person pizza (they specifically said they would not do so), but because they said they were opposed to gay marriage. I think fighting for gay-rights is a noble cause. There has been terrible persecution against homosexuals throughout history in this country, and there is terrible systematic persecution still occurring in other countries. However, I think a legitimate and noble movement has been hijacked by a small, vocal minority. Unless there's another aspect to this that I'm missing. I'm struggling to keep abreast of both sides in this case, but holy cow four people in her same county were willing and they still went for the jail charge? Just wow. The reasonable accommodation argument does really have teeth I suppose.
The other one I didn't ascribe much thought to was the good faith argument for her actions versus her beliefs. Can you really say her persecutors are viciously against her views on gay marriage rather than the actions she takes based on those views? Could a reasonable person conclude that this campaign seeks to tar and feather her for her stance and not her execution of the office? I'm giving this more thought. I'm still behind on the news stories.
|
On September 10 2015 10:45 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 10:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Several times they have come close to defunding the ACA and leaving millions of people without access to healthcare because they have no idea what to do after. It would have been utter chaos and this latest attempt is seemingly no different. Let me tell you about my experiences under the ACA: 1) My old health care plan went away. 2) I was required by mandate to find a replacement plan. I decided to do so through the federal marketplace. 3) Not having much in the way of income, I chose one of the lowest-premium plans. The premiums worked out to over 1/3 of my monthly income. 4) The plan has a deductible. The insurance covers nothing until the deductible is reached. 5) The total of the premiums plus deductible was greater than my income. 6) When the paperwork arrived, I found out that the insurance would go away if I were ever to declare bankruptcy. This was not disclosed when I signed up through the marketplace. 7) I have since been in the position of skipping routine doctor visits because I couldn't afford them on top of the insurance premiums. 8) During the renewal period, I was unable to make changes to my coverage due to technical problems on their end. One exception - my premium automatically went up. Summary - I would have better health care without insurance but can't opt out.
Either you live in an awful state or make a paltry amount of money. My wife and I make under $20k a year and we just insured her for free. It's better than the insurance that her college mandated we bought as well. We bought it through our state's insurance exchange.
|
On September 10 2015 17:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 09:53 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 09 2015 08:47 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'. I am pretty sure everyone just wants her to let her office issue marriage licences. People said she should be jailed because she defied the court order and she works for the Court. You're continued efforts to try to make it about "a disagreement of opinion" completely disingenuous. She had her disagreement of opinion and it when before highest court in the country. She lost. All things are possible, though I find your argument here to be highly improbable. Why was she not issued the reasonable religious accommodation that she asked for, namely that another clerk be deputized and be able to issue licenses without her name on them, and not under her explicit authority? She has the right for reasonable accommodations, just like every other American, and yes, that includes Muslims too (I know you did not bring up that point, but many others in real life discussions have). I would be appalled if a Muslim man or woman was imprisoned because of his or her religious beliefs. Imprisoning her was and is a terrible crime, and a grave injustice. The could have easily solved this without imprisoning her. She specifically requested an accommodation in a letter to the court, so if this was all about homosexuals being able to be married, then why imprison her, rather than granting a completely reasonable request for her. It is so obviously a political punishment, especially when you take the context into account. Some photographers and bakers do not want to put their artistic talents in support of a gay-marriage, often citing religious objections. They don't want to be morally associated with it because they have a deeply held (if flawed) belief that doing so risks the displeasure of God. Instead of the gay couple being reasonable and going somewhere else, they invariably bring suit, usually with hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Even more revealingly, they will often offer to withdraw the suit if the religious person simply performs the service and provides the support. And we are not talking about grocery stores or gas stations, where no one can reasonably claim a religious objection. No mainstream code of ethics or religious tenets forbid the sale of gasoline or candy bars to homosexuals. Many mainstream religions do, however, forbid the moral support of such unions. Distinguishing between simply doing business with an individual who happens to be homosexual and actively/openly supporting the lifestyle. Where the gray area comes in is that many people do consider artistic expression to be closely tied to the moral aspect of humanity. I think most people would agree that painting and selling a picture of a rose is wholly different than standing in a check-out line at a grocery store. Creativity and artistic expression is especially important to many religious people, as they consider that to be a divine gift specifically granted to them for the purpose of glorifying God. To ask them to use that talent in support of what they percieve as an immoral cause is quite literally to ask them to damn themselves, according to their honestly held beliefs. We might disagree with those beliefs, but we cannot rightly ignore the conviction with which they are believed and the spiritual anguish a person might feel if they violate a core tenet of their religion. Kim Davis has been ordered to personally authorize a gay-marriage, to literally put her signature on her own death warrant. As far as she is concerned, she is being offered a choice of unemployment, imprisonment, or damnation. I could possibly see the point if she were not asking for a simple accommodation, and if that accommodation were not very easy to grant. But they have refused to grant her the accommodation, instead requiring her to personally show support. Just like the baker's (one of whom offered the gay-couple a generic cake, which they refused. Another offered to refer them to another baker, again they refused.) These people are not being punished because they are preventing homosexuals from getting married, having their pictures taken, or eating decorated cakes. There are countless bakers who will have no problems with baking a gay-couple a cake for their marriage, there are countless photographers who will work at a gay wedding, and there could are dozens of county-clerks who are willing to sign licenses (four deputy-clerks in that county are willing, none of these could be deputized?). They are being punished for being against the marriage. Hence the uproar and threats to a pizzeria in the middle of nowhere, not because they denied a gay person pizza (they specifically said they would not do so), but because they said they were opposed to gay marriage. I think fighting for gay-rights is a noble cause. There has been terrible persecution against homosexuals throughout history in this country, and there is terrible systematic persecution still occurring in other countries. However, I think a legitimate and noble movement has been hijacked by a small, vocal minority. Unless there's another aspect to this that I'm missing. I'm struggling to keep abreast of both sides in this case, but holy cow four people in her same county were willing and they still went for the jail charge? Just wow. The reasonable accommodation argument does really have teeth I suppose. The other one I didn't ascribe much thought to was the good faith argument for her actions versus her beliefs. Can you really say her persecutors are viciously against her views on gay marriage rather than the actions she takes based on those views? Could a reasonable person conclude that this campaign seeks to tar and feather her for her stance and not her execution of the office? I'm giving this more thought. I'm still behind on the news stories.
You should have skipped that post and read the one underneath it linking the story with the "myths" about Kim Davis, which basically debunked everything cowboy said.
|
On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control.
I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him.
Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved.
|
On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved.
The point that KwarK is getting at is that there are a great many Obamacare dissenters who found their dissatisfaction upon a misunderstanding of the ACA and are, in turn, implicating their own inability to manage their finances and take advantage of the safety nets available instead of reflecting on the quality of the law itself. This contrasts with your assumption that the unfortunate Buckyman was pushed down the cracks in the law as opposed to having slipped down them on his own accord. Granted, getting into someone's personal finances is a messy business that ought not be used to prove a point, but Buckyman invited that sort of analysis the moment he put forth his own anecdotal experience in support of a viewpoint.
|
On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved.
No, his state government fucked him and he's blaming Obamacare for it.
|
I'm covered by my dad's plan until I'm 26, but he pays a couple thousand more each year for coverage now. Well, until then my work is compensating me for the insurance I'm not using, so yay. The plan is high deductible though, so ugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
