“Republican Alternative To Obamacare”: Pay More, Get Less, Put The Insurance Companies Back In Charge
Boy, can Democrats have fun with the new Republican alternative to Obamacare. It puts the health insurance companies back in charge and raises costs for almost all Americans. In particular, it substantially raises costs and threatens to cut coverage for the half of all Americans who get health insurance at work. Seniors, the group that Republicans have scared witless about Obamacare, would lose the real benefits they receive under Obamacare. The proposal from three Republican senators is a golden opportunity for Democrats to contrast the specific benefits of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with what a repeal-and-replace agenda would really mean for Americans’ lives and health.
When it comes to the politics of health care reform, my first adage is “the solution is the problem.” That is because once you get past vague generalities, like lowering costs and making coverage available, to proposing specifics, people will look to see how the proposals impact them personally. This is why health reform is such a political nightmare. Unlike most public policy issues, the impact is very understandable and real.
With the ACA as the law of the land, in analyzing the Republican proposal we must compare its impact to the law it would repeal. The pre-ACA model of health insurance is irrelevant. Here is how the Republican plan would impact people, compared with the ACA:
People who get health insurance at work – bottom line: pay more for worse coverage.
Almost half of all Americans (48 percent), or 148 million people, obtain health insurance at work. The Republican plan would tax 35 percent of the average cost of health insurance benefits at work. This is a big tax increase on working people and is extraordinarily unpopular, as the Obama campaign used to devastating impact on John McCain. And while people would pay more, they would get less coverage, as the GOP plan would allow insurance companies to once again limit the amount of benefits they will pay out in one year and return to the day when employers could offer bare-bones plans.
While taxing health benefits would apply to all employer-provided coverage, the Republicans would give the 30 percent of people who work for businesses who employ fewer than 100 workers a tax credit. That might balance out the increased taxes for some people. However, doing so would create a huge set of economic distortions, as employers might seek to keep firm size under the 100-employee threshold.
Individuals who buy coverage on their own or who are uninsured – bottom line: insurance companies could again deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and offer bare-bones coverage, while the cost of decent coverage would go up for most people.
This is the group that the ACA is most aimed at helping, including the 5 percent of Americans who buy private health insurance and the 15 percent who are uninsured, totaling 64 million people. The ACA offers income-based subsidies to these people when they earn between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) and enrolls people under 133 percent of FPL in Medicaid, when states agree.
The Republican plan is toughest, in comparison with the ACA, on the lowest-income people and on the higher-income middle class, compared with Obamacare. But many families in between will do worse too.
The Republican plan would wipe out the expansion of Medicaid to people earning less than 133 percent of FPL, a provision the Supreme Court has made optional. It would cut back on Medicaid, ending the federal government’s offer to pay 90 percent of the cost of expanded coverage and replacing that with the federal government paying what it has paid historically, which is between half and three-quarters of the cost of Medicaid, with poorer states getting a bigger share. Crucially, the funding would only be for pregnant women, children and parents with dependent children who earn under the poverty level, as opposed to the ACA’s funding of all adults up to 133 percent of FPL. That means many fewer people covered and states getting less Medicaid money. Republican governors may not complain, but you can bet hospitals will. Adults without dependent children would not be covered by federal Medicaid, which means millions will stay uninsured or lose coverage they now have, unless states pay for coverage without federal support.
For individuals not covered by Medicaid or employees of firms with fewer than 100 workers, the Republican plan would replace the ACA’s sliding-scale subsidies, which now go to 400 percent of FPL, with a subsidy that is the same for everyone of the same age who is under 200 percent of FPL and lowersubsidies for people from 200 percent to 300 percent. In addition, the subsidies would be higher for older people than younger. The Republican plan also would take away the requirements that insurance plans offer decent benefits and free preventive care and charge women the same prices as men for coverage, along with every other consumer protection, with the exception of keeping in place no lifetime caps for covered benefits.
Comparing the value of the Republican plan subsidies vs. the ACA subsidies for the people who would still qualify depends on income, age, and family size. Generally, it appears that the Republican subsidies are much less than the ACA for people under 150 percent of the FPL ($35,000 for a family of four) and much less than the ACA for younger people, but more for older people. However, insurance rates for younger people would go down some at the expense of older people, who insurance companies could charge a lot more than under ACA. And families with incomes above $70,000 for a family of four would lose subsidies entirely.
Seniors and the disabled on Medicare – bottom line: seniors would pay more for prescription drugs and preventive care.
By repealing the ACA, the Republican plan would take away its two concrete benefits for seniors. One is that preventive care services are now free under Medicare (as they are under all insurance). The other is that the ACA is lowering drug prices for seniors by slowly closing the “donut hole,” under which seniors must pay the full cost of prescription drugs even though they are paying premiums for drug coverage. In other words, the Republican plan is simply bad news for seniors, the constituency that they have scared the most about Obamacare… groundlessly.
It is not surprising that Republicans have been reluctant to come up with a replacement for Obamacare. It’s much easier to throw darts – or bombs – at the ACA than to come up with a replacement that meets Republican ideological tenets of less regulation and less government. Any plan that meets the ideological test will be much worse for people in ways they can understand. It is our job to explain it to the public clearly: pay more, get less, put the insurance companies back in charge. This debate is not simply the political game Republicans want to make it. It is about our health and our lives.
By: Richard Kirsch, The National Memo, January 29, 2014
“Obamacare’s a ‘Bailout’ Now?”: Conservative Critics Are Getting Desperate
Conservatives used to say Obamacare is socialized medicine. Now they say it is a “government bailout” of insurers.
The new claim is just as misleading and cynical as the old one.
The latest conservative playing thing is a pair of previously obscure Obamacare features: “reinsurance” and “risk corridors.” Their mechanisms are a bit complicated to explain. (Read here if you want the details.) What matters is their shared purpose, which is to reimburse insurance companies that end up taking heavy losses—say, because the new marketplaces don’t attract enough young, healthy subscribers. Remember, insurers depend on premiums from people in good health to subsidize the costs of the sick. Without the right mix, the premiums insurers collect won’t be sufficient to cover the cost of clams. They’ll lose money, raise premiums in the future, drop out of the market altogether, or some combination of the three. In short, bad stuff will happen.
To Obamacare supporters, reinsurance and risk corridors are tools for stabilizing the insurance market and easing the transition from the old system to the new. (That’s why I’ve been calling them “shock absorbers.”) But the provisions started attracting scrutiny from the right in the fall, when policy watchers like David Freddoso of Conservative Intelligence Briefing first wrote about it. Now reinsurance and risk corridors are getting more sustained attention from the Weekly Standard, Fox News, and the conservative movement writ large. Republican Senator Marco Rubio has sponsored a bill to repeal the risk corridors. “Why should taxpayers have to bail out health insurance companies in the increasingly likely event that ObamaCare leaves them with financial losses?” Rubio wrote this week, in an op-ed for the Fox website. “This is government favoritism and corporate cronyism at its worst, and it’s taxpayers that will pay the price unless we stop it.” Insurers are sufficiently spooked that, as Buzzfeed’s Kate Nocera has reported, they are undertaking a lobbying campaign to keep the provisions in place.
The bailout analogy is potent. And it’s certainly accurate to say that, under Obamacare, some insurers may collect payments from the government to help offset losses. But the analogy breaks down after that.
Bailouts typically start with companies taking egregiously irresponsible actions and end with the government forking over mind-boggling sums of money to save them. Think of the savings and loans institutions misleading the public about the state of their finances in the 1980s—or the financial industry making those bad home loans and risky investments a decade ago. Each of those involved grievous management errors, frequently skirting the limits of legality. The federal outlays to save those banks were in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
With Obamacare, the situation is different. Projecting future insurance costs inevitably involves a little guesswork. With a brand new program like Obamacare, it inevitably involves a lot of guesswork. Even the smartest, most responsible actuaries might not get the numbers right, for reasons Sy Mukherjee of ThinkProgress explains:
Insurance companies were sort of shooting in the dark when they set premiums for Obamacare’s first year. They had to approximate how many people would enroll, how old the customers would be, how sick they would be, how much insurers would have to pay out in claims — but the whole enterprise was, ultimately, a series of educated guesses.
Will the guesses prove wrong? Humana officials told investors last week that the risk pools look a little worse than they had anticipated. But, as Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post just reported, officials at Wellpoint say their risk pools seem ok while the CEO of Aetna described the demographics as “better than I thought they would have been.”
Truth is, no insurer will be sure about its beneficiaries for many months, until the open enrollment period ends and the newly insured have a few months in which to file claims. That makes it impossible to know what kinds of losses, if any, insurers will take. But even if the losses are significant, the taxpayers won’t be in for another Wall Street-style bailout.
For one thing, the reinsurance money comes from the insurers themselves, who pay a tax on each beneficiary. It’s basically a transfer of funds, from all carriers to those companies inside the Obamacare marketplaces that end up with unusually unhealthy members. In this sense, it’s an insurance policy for the insurers—and one they more or less finance on their own.
The payouts from risk corridors are a little different, in the sense that those dollars come directly from government funds and have no actual limit. But the risk corridors also build up government funds—in effect, by claiming some of the profits from insurers who reap unexpected windfalls. The Congressional Budget Office, in its overall cost estimates for the Affordable Care Act, assumed that the inflow and outlfow would be roughly the same, so that the risk corridor program as a whole would be budget neutral. Even if CBO’s prediction is wrong, and the government ends up spending more than it raises, the difference is likely to be modest. The formula for payouts calls merely for government to share in high losses or gains, not to take them on completely. It’s enough to protect the insurers, the thinking goes, but not enough to cause a massive outlay. Meanwhile, lower-than-expected premiums are likely to save the government much more money than the risk corridors would ever pay out.
Conservatives might object to reinsurance and risk corridors on principle, regardless of amounts involved. That would be a perfectly legitimate argument, except for one thing: Reinsurance and risk corridors are already a feature of some government programs, most prominent among them Medicare Part D. The reinsurance and risk corridors in Obamacare and Medicare Part D are remarkably similar, except that Obamacare’s are temporary and Medicare Part D’s are permanent—which is to say, they are still part of the program.
What’s that? You haven’t heard Republicans attacking Medicare Part D as an insurer bailout? Maybe that’s because of one other, obvious difference between Part D and the Affordable Care Act. Only one of them was signed into law by a guy named Barack Obama.
Update: The Rubio bill would repeal only the risk corridors. Originally, I wrote that it would repeal both provisions. My apologies for the error.
By: Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, January 16, 2014
“Voters Wil Not Forget”: Opposition To Obamacare Will Come Back To Haunt Conservatives
It is truly amazing to me to read through the blogs, the press releases from the Republican anti-Obamacare war room, the phalanx of Koch-brothers’ sponsored think tanks and web sites – one message: FAILURE.
Let’s leave aside that their cagey rhetoric has shifted from “repeal” to “a fix,” but that their policy position remains the same: kill it. Republicans will continue their onslaught against the Affordable Care Act because they believe it is a political attack that will work for them and unite their party, at least in the short run.
They complain about the problems with the website, yet they love that it didn’t work well. They are euphoric when it fails. Do they want it to succeed? Heck no.
They offer up people who have had problems switching their health care plans, with big smiles on their faces. Another Congressional hearing is called for to condemn the ACA, according to the Republicans.
Peter Roff, one of my esteemed colleagues on this blog, publishes a list from the Heritage Foundation on why the ACA will fail (never mind that much of what Heritage called for is in the law, like the individual mandate).
But forget all that. I would cite much of this list as precisely why Obamacare will work (see Roff’s Heritage list here):
- The new plans available under the law will provide better coverage for a better price. This is not a broken promise by the president but the end result. Think about the benefits: no pre existing conditions; no canceling of your plan when you get sick; no caps on coverage; no huge costs for women over what men pay; keeping children on the plan until they are 26.
- There will be more options for consumers to choose from, not less. They won’t be forced into inferior plans.
- The new approach to Medicaid will allow people to shop for and purchase their plans, not arrive in emergency rooms often too late for help and with exorbitant costs. This will be a vast improvement on where we are now. Sadly, many Republican governors want to keep these people from getting insurance by rejecting federal funds to help with the Medicaid expansion.
- The ACA will lead to more stable families with better health care, not penalize people for success or getting married, as Heritage asserts.
- There will be better care for women, more coverage, and it won’t destroy our religious liberties. Pardon the sexism, but that is a “straw man.”
- Probably the most absurd claim from Heritage is that the ACA is a job killer. If we are providing health care to an additional 30-40 million Americans, it will create jobs in the health care field, not kill them. More doctors, more nurses, more ways to care for patients. Businesses will have more productive workers, fewer who are sick and out of work, and costs will decrease as more people are covered.
I do have one prediction for my friend Peter Roff and those Republicans who are staking the political future of their party on killing the ACA: When this succeeds, voters will not forget, and they will remember the horror stories of the old system. The more the focus is on patient care, better treatment through R&D, keeping people healthy, access for millions, the more that Democrats will benefit from the contrast. Republicans should be very careful not to argue too strongly for failure, it will come back to haunt them.
By: Peter Fenn, U. S. News and World Report, December 5, 2013
“Unsatisfying To The Media And Republicans”: Surprise, Obamacare Now Projected To Cost Hundreds Of Billions Less Than Expected
Amidst the dark skies of the Healthcare.gov launch, some daylight may finally be emerging with respect to one of the critical goals of the Affordable Care Act—bending the cost curve of America’s expensive healthcare system.
According to a New York Times report out Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office has quietly removed hundreds of billions of dollars from the projected costs of Obamacare, primarily the result of an anticipated decrease in the federal government’s contribution to the Medicaid expansion program along with the projected cost of the subsidy payments to those buying private insurance policies on the healthcare exchanges.
Why the good news?
The more favorable projections are the direct result of the slowing trend in the growth of healthcare spending over the past five years leading to a slowdown in rising costs. While, ten years ago, per-capita spending on healthcare had been growing by an average annual rate of 5 percent, that number was dramatically cut to 1.8 percent during the 2007-2010 period and reduced even further to 1.3 percent in the years following 2010.
Do we have Obamacare to thank for this highly successful “bending” of the cost curve?
Naturally, the answer depends upon who you ask as there simply is no definitive way of knowing—yet.
While most economist believe that the lion’s share of the reduction is due to the sluggish economy—making Americans far more careful when it comes to making decisions regarding when or if to spend money on medical care—others believe that some of the plans built into the ACA designed to get people to spend less may actually be working.
Among Obamacare inventions that do appear to be paying off in lower healthcare costs is the government’s refusal to pay hospitals more when patients are re-admitted within 30 days of their initial discharge. Additionally, new plan designs engineered to reward providers for quality of care rather than for quantity of care may well be paying off in terms of lowering the overall cost of care.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation—widely regarded as an honest, non-partisan broker when it comes to healthcare issues and analysis—the declining increases in the cost of healthcare is 75 percent the result of economic factors and 25 percent a benefit of the cost cutting measures in the ACA that do, in fact, appear to be working.
Of course, the big question is whether or not these cost lowering provisions of Obamacare will continue to do the job once the economy regains its more typical trajectory.
There are reasons to be hopeful that healthcare spending can be held down once the economy kicks into higher gear.
For starters, while many Americans shopping for new health insurance policies may be decrying the higher deductibles they are discovering in the new offerings, higher deductibles should have a meaningful impact on the decisions people make when determining whether or not a visit to the doctor or agreeing to a given procedure is really necessary. While a $250 deductible will likely not cause a patient to ask how much a suggested CT Scan is going to cost, a $3,000-$5,000 deductible is far more likely to cause the patient to ask a few more questions and make more focused decisions when payment for the test is coming out-of-pocket.
Not surprisingly, there are no shortage of economists and pundits who believe that the ACA will prove inadequate to the task of controlling costs once the economy is in better shape.
Others are more hopeful, believing that the slowdown in costs are very much a result of hospitals and insurance companies understanding that something had to change given the unsustainable trends in rising costs. As a result of a desire to derail out-of-control costs before the costs derailed them, insurers and hospitals became involved in substantial systemic revisions designed to lower healthcare spending even before the government required them to do so.
Discussing whether the current decreases can last when previous periods of cost-curve bending did not, Annie Lowrey writes in her New York Times piece—
“This time may be more durable. Insurance and hospital executives in Massachusetts, Illinois and California, among other places where reforms have gone the furthest, report a consensus that spending growth had become unsustainable, and that expectations that Washington would force changes to the system spurred them to make changes themselves.”
If this is true—and I believe the evidence reveals that it is—these self-imposed changes, in tandem with the changes brought about by elements of Obamacare that don’t receive nearly as much attention as the more hot button issues, may prove to provide lasting changes to the system; changes that will point our cost trajectory in the right direction.
Like most elements of the Affordable Care Act, these issues and results only go to prove that far more time is required before we can even begin to measure the real benefits or detriments of Obamacare.
While this reality may prove unsatisfying to the media, politicians and those in the public who are so emotionally committed to the failure and ultimate death of Obamacare—whether for political purposes or only so that the opponents can experience the satisfaction of having been right—anyone interested in realistic measurement of this dramatic change in our system better settle in for the long run.
It’s going to be awhile until we know how this story ends.
By: Rick Ungar, Op-Ed Contributor, Forbes, December 4, 2013
“A Reminder Of The Essential Truth”: You Might Lose Your Doctor, But Don’t Blame Obamacare
Obamacare critics on the right think they have a new issue. They are calling it “provider shock.” Thanks to the new health care law, these conservatives say, insurance companies are limiting beneficiaries to small groups of doctors and hospitals. As a result, people who depend on these professionals and institutions will have to seek treatment elsewhere—and, inevitably, get substandard care.
When conservatives make these arguments, I imagine they have in mind stories like this one, from the Los Angeles Times:
In a major shift in health-care benefits likely to be followed by others, PacifiCare Health Systems Inc. today will unveil an HMO that will limit members’ choices to a relatively small network of doctors and hospitals. … members who enroll in the plan, called Value Network, will have available to them about one-third of the hospitals and one-half of the doctors of a standard HMO. Altogether, there are 300 hospitals and 250 medical groups in California. Value Network members who use providers outside the slimmed-down network generally will have to foot the bills.
If you’re a fellow health policy geek, then you may have guessed the punch line. This article isn’t from 2013. It’s from 2002. And it’s a reminder of the essential truth here. Insurance companies have been using limited provider networks for a long time. It’s how they conducted business before Obamacare came along and, for better or worse, it’s how they’ll conduct business now that Obamacare is law.
Maybe a little history would put this issue in its proper context. Once upon a time, most insurance carriers would pay for care provided by pretty much any person or facility with a license. But that got expensive and, by the 1980s, insurers responded by reducing what they would pay for services—and then limiting beneficiaries to networks of doctors and hospitals willing to accept these lower fees.
The change was not particularly popular. At the time, Americans were not accustomed to such restrictions on where they got their medical care. In response to the consumer and political backlash—a backlash that providers happily supported—insurers started offering plans with looser restrictions. Mostly these were preferred provider organizations (PPOs), which allowed beneficiaries to seek care out of network as long as they were willing to pay more for each visit and service. But provider restrictions never went away entirely and frequently negotiations over the terms led to very public disputes, as Paul Fronstin, from the Employment Benefit Research Institute, pointed out via e-mail:
There have been numerous stories over the last decade of usually health plans dropping a large provider group because the provider group wouldn’t accept the rates, or less-usually a provider group walking away from a health plan because it didn’t like the terms. Often the two would come to terms after some period of continued negotiation once the contract expired and the news hit the fan, so to speak.
More recently insurers have shown renewed interest in tighter networks, sometimes through what’s known as “tiered network” plans that operate as a sort of hybrid between HMOs and PPOs. (These plans allow people to get care out of network, but only at much higher out-of-pocket costs than more traditional PPOs would require.) And it appears the Obamacare exchanges have lots of these plans.
While I haven’t seen definitive nationwide data, a report from the Center for Healthcare Transformation and Research found that, on Michigan’s new exchange, the majority of options are “limited or network plans.” In California, where narrow networks have gotten a great deal of media attention, the plans Blue Shield is offering will allow access to just 36 percent of the physicians available in Blue Cross employer plans, according to the L.A. Times. And when McKinsey and Company surveyed 16 state exchanges earlier in the year, it found that about half the plans had narrow networks, according to an article in Modern Healthcare magazine.
But Obamacare’s relationship to this trend is more complicated than it might seem. On the one hand, the law has introduced volatility into the insurance market, potentially emboldening insurers who were contemplating tightening networks already. As Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation, explained via e-mail:
Without question, some insurers took this opportunity—when things are changing and so the old ways of doing business could be shaken up—to offer new, tighter, cheaper network designs. And probably without a clear idea as to what impact it might have on patients. Also without question, some hospitals and doctor groups took this opportunity to take a tougher bargaining stance and demand higher payments from insurers to join their networks, betting the insurers couldn’t live without them, and the insurers called their bluff. It’s not obvious providers knew clearly what the patient impact would be, either.
With Obamacare, and its requirement of selling policies to anybody willing to buy them, insurers also worry about adverse selection. Previously, they were willing to offer plans without provider restrictions, but only to people unlikely to use either outpatient or inpatient services much. Now insurers have to sell plans to anybody, regardless of pre-existing conditions or risk of illness. In other words, they can’t restrict wide-open access to the people least likely to use it. Faced with this reality, some insurers are bound to raise premiums for those plans—or to stop offering them altogether. That’s why some people who buy these plans now would have to pay more for them next year. (Basically, this is just another form of rate shock, about which you’ve read so much already.)
Still, according to nearly every source inside and outside the industry I’ve consulted, the primary reason carriers are offering so many small-network plans in the exchanges is that they believe consumers want them. Their marketing research suggests that, when forced to choose between paying higher premiums for wider networks or lower premiums for narrower networks, the majority of people will go for the cheaper insurance. The one survey I’ve seen on this question, by Morning Consult, suggests the carriers may be right: In that survey, nearly 60 percent of respondents said they’d opt for plans with fewer provider choices if it meant saving on premiums.
Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, summarizes the situation this way:
The main way insurers control costs is by negotiating and selectively contracting with doctors and hospitals. That’s been the case for decades. The only real connection to the Affordable Care Act is that the health reform law is making insurers compete for customers more aggressively.
As it happens, the narrower networks might be a good fit for many consumers, both financially and medically. Totally lost in this debate is the fact that many experts believe our health care system pays the providers of medical care way too much money. That’s particularly true of hospitals, whose obtuse and frequently unjustified prices were the subject of Steve Brill’s celebrated Time magazine article earlier this year. Sometimes high prices correlate with high quality, but sometimes they don’t. And particularly when it comes to more routine care, a community hospital is not just adequate but maybe even preferable to a teaching hospital that specializes in the hardest-to-treat cases.
Of course, the converse is also true. A few people have those hardest-to-treat cases. They are the ones who are better off at a place like Cedars-Sinai or the Mayo Clinic—or who need to maintain long-term relationships with professionals, rather than switching every time plans alter their networks. They are also the people whom, ideally, health insurance should do the most to assist.
But it’s not as if most people in this situation have unfettered access to such doctors and hospitals today. And Obamacare has provisions designed to help them. Most of the exchanges seem to include more traditional PPOs. They are expensive, but they are available to anybody—including people who, because of pre-existing conditions, previously had absolutely no way to buy them. (There are also subsidies that some people can use to offset the cost.) In addition, the Affordable Care Act has a “network adequacy” requirement that, in theory, requires all plans to include hospitals that provide specialty services like pediatric cancer treatment. The law even creates an external appeals process, through which people with private insurance can seek medically appropriate care they believe their carriers cannot (or will not) provide.
There’s a good case for strengthening these two provisions, which are relatively weak, or for taking other steps to help people who depend upon the most advanced hospitals and/or a set of familiar providers. The federal government could, for example, offer more financial incentives for the creation of Accountable Care Organizations, which are closed-network groups of providers designed to deliver the same kind of high-quality, low-cost care you find today at places like Kaiser Permanente, Geisinger Health System, and Group Health of Puget Sound. More states could set hospital rates, as Maryland already does, effectively taking price negotiation out of the market and subjecting it instead to regulation. Or there’s the most radical solution of all: Simply junking private insurance and creating a single-payer system, which would operate more or less like Medicare and would, in practice, mean access to most physicians and virtually every hospital.
None of these things are likely to happen anytime soon. They involve greater government regulation of health insurance, which would be fine with most Obamacare supporters but anathema to the law’s critics. That’s one irony of this latest controversy, as Jonathan Chait pointed out on Monday. Market forces, not government, and the main reason insurers are introducing tighter networks. Yet the people objecting to the result are the same ones who say they love markets.
By: Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, November 26, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 