Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%

  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%

  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%

  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%

  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%

  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
YSSMAN
Hmm. I guess all that "unprecedented access" that Fox News had during the Bush years has already been forgotten.
Click to expand...

All of the networks had interviews, sit-downs, walk-arounds with President Bush at the White House. Most of the time they were attacking him.
 
Omnis
ABC News is a broadcast news show. Fox News is a cable news network with political commentary shows.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think that excuses either of them of any form of criticism, regardless of where their news may be displayed. As I said above, its up to the viewer/reader to know what they're getting into. Regardless of who is in power, if they're taking talking points from the Administration, we've got a problem.
 
YSSMAN
Personally, I don't think that excuses either of them of any form of criticism, regardless of where their news may be displayed.
Click to expand...
The important thing Omnis said was not whether they were broadcast or cable, but that one is news and the other was openly done as commentary. It is not where it is displayed but how. Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly are all listed and labeled by Fox News as opinion and commentary...not news. ABC News is listed as News...not commentary. Or do you think that Charlie Gibson has his own nightly commentary show? ABC News are at risk of selling out their professional ethics. If there are no hard questions asked and this could have been achieved by any usual all networks broadcast Disney investors should demand to know why ABC is once again losing a full night of prime time revenue to be a speaker box for the president.
 
Again, its my understanding that the program will be a Q&A session with questions fielded by viewers, and people in this town-hall setting, as well as questions from experts from both sides of the spectrum. The event, apparently, will be moderated by Gibson and Sawyer. While Good Morning America and World News Tonight will be broadcasting from the White House that day, its no different than what has been done dozens of times before by other networks - Promoting a new special while filming on the White House grounds. Its something that Fox News did on more than one occasion, with their "Unprescedented Access" special "George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish" in February 2008. That included access to the White House, on Air Force One, and at the Crawford Ranch. We could include their "Dick Cheyney: No Retreat" interview from October 2007 as well. Or, if we want to go still further in that same month, Gretta VanSustren's travels with Laura Bush in the Middle East. Again, it all comes off as a media pissing contest. None of it actually accomplishing anything, or even God forbid a legitimate discussion over what we should (or should not) be doing with our healthcare system. Like Huckabee said, its all "creating more heat than light," and it ends up doing a disservice to everyone.

...Anyway...

ABC appears to be advertising this as "a discussion," not "news."

2009-06-15-ABC-WNCG-RXplug.jpg


Also:
Questions for the discussion can be submitted here via Digg.com, as a part of their Digg Dialog series.
 
Last edited:
A discussion, aka a propaganda session. Yssman, you seem to be thinking that I think the Fox News thing was a-okay because of what the network is. It wasn't. Furthermore you certainly can't rationalize what ABC is doing because of what another network did.

I predict that this isn't going to be "Questions for the President". Maybe "Answers" from him, or "Scripted lead-ins for the President." Framing the debate instead of exploring it.
 
I got $50 that says he doesn't have to answer a question regarding government efficiency or how this will be any better than the VA.

Heck I am tempted to bet that he doesn't take a question from a well insured person who receives great healthcare, and that all we see are questions from the people that are hard on their luck and can't afford healthcare through "no fault of their own."


Wow, I am getting cynical. Could be that his healthcare plan will have more direct effect on me than anything else. For some reason I am positive I will get screwed by this.


EDIT: YSSMAN, You have two Bret Baier and one Greta Van Sustren stories...commentators, not reporters.
 
Last edited:
FoolKiller
I got $50 that says he doesn't have to answer a question regarding government efficiency or how this will be any better than the VA.

Heck I am tempted to bet that he doesn't take a question from a well insured person who receives great healthcare, and that all we see are questions from the people that are hard on their luck and can't afford healthcare through "no fault of their own."


Wow, I am getting cynical. Could be that his healthcare plan will have more direct effect on me than anything else. For some reason I am positive I will get screwed by this.


EDIT: YSSMAN, You have two Bret Baier and one Greta Van Sustren stories...commentators, not reporters.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet. It's going to be, "How you gonna get me my free healthcare and car payment you promised me on the campaign trail?"
 
Omnis
Yeah, I bet. It's going to be, "How you gonna get me my free healthcare and car payment you promised me on the campaign trail?"
Click to expand...

OOOOOOOhhhh, Mister Obama, praise the Lord Almighty... Jesus!!! Obamaaaa! Obamaaa! Can you please get me a house, a car, Jordan's for my five kids, a new iPhone! I need a job, please Mister Obama, I know you can save me, please almighty Jesus, Obama is good, oh yes he is!





At least Obama has America's idiots under control.
 
Omnis
A discussion, aka a propaganda session. Yssman, you seem to be thinking that I think the Fox News thing was a-okay because of what the network is. It wasn't. Furthermore you certainly can't rationalize what ABC is doing because of what another network did.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think what either of them are doing is real "reporting," or "opining," regardless of what point of view their attempting to promote. By no means am I condoning whatever it is that ABC is doing, much less what Fox News has done, but I otherwise wished to point out that while everyone is hooting and hollaring about (what I believe to be) something that really isn't that huge of a deal... Its not much different than what we've seen before. That doesn't make it right, for either of them. Period.
 
Well when we're talking about the future of medical freedom in this country, it's kind of a big deal. The last thing we need is an unchecked, unchallenged, socialist "prescription for america" broadcast to the entire country.
 
My guess is that we're going to face exactly the same problem we had in 1993/1994, and likely end up in a gridlock again. That is, unless moderate Republicans and Democrats come together and make some kind of lowered expectation, lowered demand, genuine compromise. Dogs and cats would likely have to start living together first.
 
Obama is counting stimulus job growth based on assumptions plugged into a formula, not hard numbers. The irony is that he is using the same math that Bush used in 2001. Change?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iXsYoMvVjZSkd0HFkxl56wkFdeqAD98SUFF00

Stimulus Watch: Follow along as Obama counts jobs
By MATT APUZZO – 5 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Few things in President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan have engendered as much skepticism or criticism as his oft-repeated promise to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

Republicans in Congress have labeled it fuzzy math. Former Republican House Speaker New Gingrich called it a "meaningless metric." And Tony Fratto, a former spokesman for President George W. Bush, said it was a political trick unrivaled in his 20 years in Washington.

The fight over Obama's promise has thrust a mundane economic formula responsible for the jobs estimate into Washington's political spin machine. The formula is being misused by the president, whose advisers acknowledge it was never intended as a way to count jobs. And it's being mischaracterized by Republicans, who previously have used such formulas to promote their own stimulus plans.

There's no black magic at the heart of the formula, just two economic assumptions.

The first is that every dollar the government spends ripples through the economy, causing more than $1 worth of effect, such as: The government builds a highway. Road contractors have more money. They pay for food, rent and entertainment. Grocers, landlords and movie theaters benefit. Now they have more money. And so on.

The White House estimated that $1 in stimulus spending would have about $1.50 in effect on the economy, and that $1 in stimulus tax cuts would have about a 99-cent effect. (Economists predicted workers wouldn't immediately spend their entire tax cut.)

The second assumption is that the U.S. work force expands by about 1 million jobs with every 1 percent increase in the overall economy. If Washington spends enough to send a 1 percent ripple through the economy, the formula says, there will be 1 million more jobs.

Hence the politically savvy term "created or saved."

There are dips and turns in the formula. The $1.50 and 99 cent numbers vary, for instance, depending on how the money gets spent and how quickly it's spent. But the formula is essentially stimulus money times a multiplier, divided by gross domestic product. Come up with 3.5 percent, create 3.5 million jobs.

"This was the right model for February," said economist Christina Romer, the Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman who helped come up with the estimate. "We needed to know: 'How big does this need to be? What's the best way to do it?'"

Conservative economists have argued that the multipliers are flawed. Obama's advisers conceded up front that it was just an estimate. Cutting $288 billion in taxes might create more jobs. Spending $499 billion might create fewer.

Mushy? Definitely. Unprecedented? Hardly.

Bush used essentially the same formula in 2001 when pitching his own stimulus proposal.

"The bipartisan agreement reached this week can save 300,000 American jobs that might otherwise be lost," Bush said in a radio address.

But the economic model was only intended to predict that jobs would be created, not count them. Think of the formula as a weather forecast. Obama is using it as a thermometer.

When White House officials say they've created 150,000 jobs they're arriving at that figure based on how much has been spent, plugging that dollar amount into the formula, and announcing jobs. Under that strategy, as long as the administration spends all the stimulus money, it will hit its job-creation target, regardless of what actually happens in the overall economy.

That's not how economists count jobs, and Romer says it's not how she's counting stimulus jobs. The formula was a prediction, she said, but counting requires actual numbers: unemployment figures, manufacturing and construction data, and county-by-county, state-by-state job reports.

"Once we've spent the money, we can't just assume the model was right," she said, adding, "The proof is going be whether or not the overall economy recovers."

But with unemployment expected to keep rising in the near future, it's not clear that Obama and Vice President Joe Biden plan to stop citing the formula's calculations any time soon. Obama has promised to create 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer, a goal he is certain to hit as long as the government keeps spending money at a speedy clip.

If the economy improves, none of this may matter to voters. But if the economy continues to falter, Obama can expect more criticism about the formula and the 3.5 million-job promise it created.
Click to expand...
 
He went up against the premiere of a show about a rich guy who goes around helping people...with...his...own...money.

Bad move.

But it isn't as if there was a good amount of back and forth going on.

These guys are calling it the Obama filibuster.
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090625043708.aspx

graph%20copy3.png



Personally, having watched only the 10:00 portion, I sort of agree. Yes he did a lot of talking, but it did not feel like he was burning time to avoid more questions (with 164 audience members, he only took 19 questions), but it felt more like he is such a politician that he can't shut up. Every single question was met with a vague answer backed by some emotional story or personal experience.

But to me the bigger issue is that the news people got more air time than the people this was supposed to be about. Charles and Diane could not shut up and they would go into these back and forths with the president. Hey Diane, see that guy standing up behind you because you walked over to him as he has the next pre-screened, pre-planned question? He is waiting his turn while you waste time following up with your own semi-related question or own anecdotal tale. And Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, just because you all are sitting in comfy chairs next to each other it doesn't make this fireside chats.

The other problem was that this had commercial breaks. Ten minutes were lost. That could have been at least two more questions. But ABC has to pay the bills somehow. I'm just afraid that the president will get canceled due to pressure from advertisers after he got fewer viewers than a rerun of "The New Adventures of Old Christine."

It was poorly designed, and I honestly feel that not a single question asked represented the view of people who are fully opposed to government intervention in anything. Where were the people wondering how it would be paid for or pointing out that recent research shows that the cost per patient of Medicare has grown much faster than private insurance?

If the president wants the American people seriously he needs to take people who disagree with him seriously. Let them ask him the tough questions on live TV. If America hears a question that makes them think, but the president gives it a good answer then he will earn much more respect than taking planned questions. Even better if he allows a proper back and forth debate. He did not talk to America, as it was billed, but at them.
 
FoolKiller
It was poorly designed, and I honestly feel that not a single question asked represented the view of people who are fully opposed to government intervention in anything. Where were the people wondering how it would be paid for or pointing out that recent research shows that the cost per patient of Medicare has grown much faster than private insurance?

If the president wants the American people seriously he needs to take people who disagree with him seriously. Let them ask him the tough questions on live TV. If America hears a question that makes them think, but the president gives it a good answer then he will earn much more respect than taking planned questions. Even better if he allows a proper back and forth debate. He did not talk to America, as it was billed, but at them.
Click to expand...

On most points, I agree with you. I watched part of it, but seeing as how I'm indifferent to the argument in general, I wasn't all that interested. Well, that and I was getting in line for Transformers (SWEET). But, as I pointed out before, regardless of who is in power, Presidents (generally) don't get asked tough questions by anyone. They should, but they don't.

I still see this ending in a deadlock, again, but who knows.
 
Not really all that shocking. It seemed relatively likely that the Democrats were going to be able to push it through relatively easily, despite the opposition from the Republicans. I checked out some of the stuff my Republican Congressman wrote about in reaction to the bill, and his vote, and I agree with him for the most part. There are things that were okay, and there were things that needed work, but more time should have been spent to make it a better bill.

The Senate is either going to block it, or draw it back pretty far by comparison to the House bill. That's usually their job anyway.
 
So, it looks like President Obama isn't just going after his own little national healthcare plan, but possibly considering paying for it by implementing John McCain's plan, that Candidate Obama himself called "the largest middle-class tax increase in history."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/28/obama-open-new-health-benefits-tax/

Obama open to new health-benefits tax
Philip Elliott ASSOCIATED PRESS

The White House left open the possibility Sunday that President Obama might pay for his health care overhaul by taxing employer-provided health insurance even though he had campaigned on not raising taxes on middle-class families.

White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration wouldn't rule out taxing some employees' benefits to fund a health care agenda that has yet to take final form. The move would be a compromise with fellow Democrats, who are pushing the proposal as a way to pay for the massive undertaking without ballooning the federal deficit.

"There are a number of formulations, and we'll wait and see. The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going," Mr. Axelrod said. "We've gotten a long way down the road, and we want to finish that journey."

But if Mr. Obama compromises on that point, it would reverse his promise not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000.

"I pledge that, under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase," Mr. Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year. "Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

At the time, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, was proposing a tax on health benefits similar to the plan Mr. Obama now is considering. Just a year ago, Mr. Obama spent millions on campaign commercials attacking the idea.

One ad accused Mr. McCain of favoring "taxing health benefits for the first time ever . . . taxing health care instead of fixing it. We can't afford John McCain."

A second Obama ad called Mr. McCain's approach "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." Driving the point home, it contended the "McCain tax could cost your family thousands. Can you afford it?"

Under the current proposals, a tax on health benefits would affect only those with pricey health plans. The idea would be to tax as income the portion of health benefits worth more than a specified limit. Officials are considering several options, including one that would set the limit at $17,240 for family coverage and $6,800 for individuals.

Plans worth more than that would be taxed; those worth less would see no increase.

Mr. Obama has faced similar criticism before. When he increased taxes on tobacco to pay for a children's health bill, his critics said he was raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.

Mr. Obama left open the possibility of a tax during interviews last week, insisting he wasn't taking any option off the table despite his personal opposition. But two of his high-profile advisers -- budget chief Peter R. Orszag and economic adviser Jason Furman -- both have indicated they support some taxes on health benefits to pay for the overhaul.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, said Mr. Obama should step in and oppose the tax if he's truly against it. Otherwise, he faces a loss to his own Democratic Party and his own campaign credibility.

"I think it's going to take presidential leadership to get people of his party to see that we shouldn't be subsidizing high-end health insurance policies that drive up inflation in health insurance," said Mr. Grassley, the top Republican on the powerful finance committee.

Mr. Grassley -- and, to be sure, other Republicans -- remember Mr. Obama's scathing criticism of their GOP presidential nominee.

"Since the president denigrated John McCain's effort to move in this direction during the campaign, it's going to take, in order to win over Republicans, presidential leadership in that direction," Mr. Grassley said.

To help sell his plan, Mr. Obama scheduled a town-hall-style meeting this week in Annandale. He plans to take questions Wednesday from the audience and from online sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

Mr. Axelrod insisted that the White House has made progress on a health care plan and is working with Congress. Even so, the emerging legislation is hardly the bipartisan collaboration Mr. Obama's top advisers had sought.

"One of the problems we've had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other," Mr. Axelrod said. "And you don't get anything done. That's not the way the president approaches us."

Mr. Axelrod appeared on ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet the Press." Mr. Grassley appeared on "This Week."
Click to expand...

I am trying to decide if this is solely about funding Obamacare or if it is also about creating an unequal market? If he taxes private health benefits, thus making them become more expensive, and then introduces his plan, which will inevitably be cheaper, he is basically forcing people on the cusp to switch, which will in turn cause private benefits to rise again, creating a vicious circle that ends in no one being able to afford anything but Obamacare.

Even if the president hasn't thought about this (which is believable when you look at his economic policies) he risks taking a system that is promoted as optional and turning it into the only option we have. Never mind that the ensuing crap storm along the way will result in more expensive health care.

Also, I find it easy to believe that he is not thinking of what this will do to private healthcare as these benefits will eventually become less available or gone, and thus the Obamacare revenue stream will be gone. It is the same as the taxing cigarettes to pay for healthcare, and to make people stop smoking. Eventually you have less smokers and not enough money for healthcare. So they raise the tax more, creating a vicious cycle.
 
Not sure. I guess I'm frustrated by how we're making it so complicated, politicizing the entire process as we go. Of course, it doesn't help that most Democrats and Republicans have insurance companies and big pharma so deep in their pockets they're "feelin' meat," but, whatever.

I imagine Canadians are giggling at us right now.
 
YSSMAN
Not sure. I guess I'm frustrated by how we're making it so complicated, politicizing the entire process as we go. Of course, it doesn't help that most Democrats and Republicans have insurance companies and big pharma so deep in their pockets they're "feelin' meat," but, whatever.

I imagine Canadians are giggling at us right now.
Click to expand...
Let them laugh. I choose what I want from a much wider range of treatments, including some experimental stuff.

And I take home much, much more of my paycheck.
 
*shug*

Difference of opinion I suppose. I'm not saying you're wrong, because I know that I'm not right either, but in general, I'm not a fan of most insurance company practices, including my own. The for-profit nature appears to get in the way of legitimate coverage under some circumstances. Personally, I'm a bit worried about my situation with kidney stones and how that will effect my ability to buy coverage in the future, jacking up rates, or eliminating coverage altogether with a "pre-existing condition."
 
I think I'll start robbing banks.

Yeah, that sounds funny, until you realize that all this government meddling will probably increase crimes like that. I almost feel sorry for people who are so desperate they figure it's worth a try. Prison food is better than no food.
 
YSSMAN
*shug*

Difference of opinion I suppose. I'm not saying you're wrong, because I know that I'm not right either, but in general, I'm not a fan of most insurance company practices, including my own. The for-profit nature appears to get in the way of legitimate coverage under some circumstances.
Click to expand...
Before government got involved and regulated the industry the for-profit plan allowed competition and kept prices down. Insurance used to be a purely catastrophic plan only and you could afford the rest out of pocket and even work out a plan with your doctor personally.

And it isn't as if Medicare, which is what this is being modeled after, is an ideal plan either. Particularly not compared to my insurance. Some stuff requires a referral first on Medicare. I can walk into any doctor I choose and get checked for whatever I want. My wife was having trouble sleeping, felt tired every day, and so we went to a sleep specialist. It wasn't recommended by anyone, we just went.

Similarly, looking at out of pocket costs at Medicare.gov and the forms I have because my insurance gets renewed tomorrow:

Premiums
Medicare Part A (hospital): $244 per month
Medicare Part B (physician): $96.40 per month - if you make under $85,000.
Total Medicare premium: $340.40 per individual.

My plan (BCBS PPO Gold Plan): $236 pre-tax a month, total for physician and hospital coverage.
I pay: $406 a month for my wife and I both.

Deductibles and Coinsurance
Medicare Part A:
For each benefit period you pay:
  • A total of $1,068 for a hospital stay of 1-60 days.
  • $267 per day for days 61-90 of a hospital stay.
  • $534 per day for days 91-150 of a hospital stay (Lifetime Reserve Days).
  • All costs for each day beyond 150 days
Skilled Nursing Facility Coinsurance
  • $133.50 per day for days 21 through 100 each benefit period.

Medicare Part B:
  • $135.00 per year. (Note: You pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for services after you meet the $135.00 deductible.)

I pay:
In-patient Hospitalization: $300 one-time copay.
Out-patient Hospitalization: $0
General Practitioner: $25 copay
Specialist: $30 copay.


Now granted, I pay for the most expensive plan I can get because the Bronze Plan is an 80/20 plan, but it is only $164 premium. And the Silver plan is 90/10 and is $190 a month. But they are still cheaper than the Medicare options.

The design of Medicare is purely for people that cannot gain access to anything else. It is obvious in its uncompetitive design.

Now, if we design a nationalized single-payer system designed like Medicare, and I have no other choice, I have to assume that I will pay more out of pocket than I do now and that on top of it I will be getting taxed more too. My main issue with this latest idea is that they are claiming it will just be a competitive option to the private plans, but if they tax my benefits then it is no longer just competing and is working to effectively remove the private option from the market.

I can't afford a national single-payer system, even if I don't use it.


And before someone mentions that not everyone has the options I have: I purposefully pursued a job with good medical benefits. Requesting information regarding their health care plan is a legitimate question during an interview. I didn't get this health plan by luck. I looked for it. My boss is fully aware that of our plan changes I will be looking for a new job.

Personally, I'm a bit worried about my situation with kidney stones and how that will effect my ability to buy coverage in the future, jacking up rates, or eliminating coverage altogether with a "pre-existing condition."
Click to expand...
Check your state laws. In Kentucky if you have not been without coverage since before the pre-existing condition was diagnosed they have to cover it. And then I have only heard of kidney stones creating an issue for six months after they have been passed/removed.

If Michigan laws are like Kentucky laws then I suggest getting coverage, no matter how cheap, as soon as possible and do not let it go.
 
I believe that people in general, friends, co-workers, are finally beginning to understand what is happening. Why is their rent going up? Why are those weird looking letters and numbers on their pay stubs increasing? How come I bought something yesterday for $4.89 and today its $5.63?

It's too damn late now.

Oh waitz:

THE BEST THING YOU'LL SEE ALL WEEK:



BLUE ON BLUE



Woo wee! That feisty lil' Helen Thomas gots some fire!
 
Last edited:
FoolKiller
Before government got involved and regulated the industry the for-profit plan allowed competition and kept prices down. Insurance used to be a purely catastrophic plan only and you could afford the rest out of pocket and even work out a plan with your doctor personally.
Click to expand...

I do not know enough history of the changes overall, but it is my understanding that some of these problems stemmed out of some changes made by Richard Nixon in '72 or '73.

I do believe that there is a non-partisan solution to the problem, however, people are going to have to be willing to sacrifice something in the process.

If Michigan laws are like Kentucky laws then I suggest getting coverage, no matter how cheap, as soon as possible and do not let it go.
Click to expand...

I'm under my Dad's insurance right now, and with some paperwork, I may be able to get my coverage extended an extra few months once my schooling is done. Thing is, I can't really afford to do too much extra healthcare through Gap, Inc... But I really can't afford not to either. Come to think of it, I have no idea who their insurance is through. Too bad, especially when I was looking into buying a house (I found a sweet deal on one near my old neighborhood for $70K).
 
YSSMAN
I do not know enough history of the changes overall, but it is my understanding that some of these problems stemmed out of some changes made by Richard Nixon in '72 or '73.
Click to expand...
It is called HMOs. You know, the same things that government has been blaming for the problem for the past decade? Government created/added to a problem, so their answer is to do even more. :dunce:

But don't be fooled. That was far from the first major government involvement, just their biggest step in messing with private insurance plans to point us in the direction we are in now with insurance.

I do believe that there is a non-partisan solution to the problem, however, people are going to have to be willing to sacrifice something in the process.
Click to expand...
I got a solution for the government: Get out of the way.


I'm under my Dad's insurance right now, and with some paperwork, I may be able to get my coverage extended an extra few months once my schooling is done. Thing is, I can't really afford to do too much extra healthcare through Gap, Inc... But I really can't afford not to either. Come to think of it, I have no idea who their insurance is through.
Click to expand...
Just get the cheapest thing they offer to carry you through until you have a more career oriented job with better coverage and money.
 

Latest Posts

Back