The Insured Poor

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall

The Insured Poor

Postby hazelrah » Fri May 15, 2015 10:28 am

My employer posted a link to this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-y ... th-science

I had naively hoped that the scuttlebutt over the ACA in 2008 would lead to a focus on health and was disappointed to see that it only lead to this new class of people destroyed by the cost of healthcare and ensured that governance of healthcare pricing would not be relegated to government, but remain with the health insurance industry. ( Thank goodness! At least we can trust them.)

But in a good way, maybe, after we've banged our heads against the wall in enough ways, we will come to the realization that we are the ones ultimately responsible for our own health; we can't buy it from a doctor or a drug manufacturer.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting, and I am quite curious as to where all the obesity and poor lifestyle choices are going to lead us in the years to come.

Mark
...the process that creates this boredom that we see in the world now may very well be a self-perpetuating, unconscious form of brainwashing, created by a world totalitarian government based on money, ... Wallace Shawn
http://www.anginamonologues.net
User avatar
hazelrah
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby dailycarbs » Fri May 15, 2015 11:11 am

The aca did not create this dynamic. It was already in play. That is, people who had to self-insure (me) could not afford insurance that would cover the true costs so the best we could do was have "asset protection insurance" where once the deductible reached a very high amount, the insurance would kick in to prevent an economic catastrophe. People without assets/net worth don't want to pay for health insurance and I don't blame them. The way the system works, they'll still get emergency care when needed and they have no assets to protect. I'd do the same thing in their position. What the aca has done is to make sure the insurance company can't refuse to cover you due to a pre-existing condition. This is huge! Also, aca will help those working poor with some assets (home equity and some savings, for example) by providing subsidies toward their premium based on need.

My wife and I have been self-insured for over 25 years (we are self-employed) and I can't remember ever going over our extremely high deducible. We've been healthy/lucky but the insurance companies sure have made bundle on us. And as for dental, dental comes only with premium insurance. I don't know a single person who has that coverage. I put off all my dental work for years and finally had to dish out $6k+ last year and that was just for crowns and some special cleaning and treatments.

When I talk to people who rail against the aca, I often find they have no idea what it is and how it works. One guy complained for an hour to me about his high deductible and how Obama has ruined the country only to get it out him that he had a high deductible insurance before aca. The difference? He got into a car accident and that's why he had the expenses now, not before. By his logic, Obama caused the car accident. At least that's the best I can make it out his twisted logic.

Also, certain states have done all they can to mess it up (on purpose, I think). I live in a state full of liberals (CT) and our exchange has been excellent.
dailycarbs
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:19 am

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby hazelrah » Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 pm

I don't think the law created it, but I think it will exacerbate it by (sort of) stimulating universal coverage. When I returned to health insurance after a 20 year run outside the industry, I was sort of shocked to see that there was absolutely no incentive to curb healthcare utilization. And the lifestyles created by free market pressures are placing the economy in a death spiral. How long will healthcare providers allow insurance companies to mandate their payments? Even if that continues, you end up in the same cat and mouse game that gave us claim unbundling and other forms of waste and abuse. I guess the hope is that by keeping governance in the hands of private insurers, somebody will come up with a brilliant idea that brings everybody money and happiness. But I can't see it. The dynamic is still pushing total cost upward. There are rare people like you who see the benefit of working on remaing healthy, but, for most people, as long as buying a Big Mac remains so much cheaper and easier than finding some way to have a healthy meal, things will not change. The real issue is that the price does not reflect the true cost. Every time that choice is made, the entire society is underwriting the risk associated with it. I had been hopeful when the buzz about the law started that there would be serious dicussion on how to remedy things, but it quickly devolved into business as usual.

Personally, I worry less about it than I used to. I've come to realize that nobody is going to save me from the great American slaughter line but me. And I've sort of come to believe that doing the things we do here will get me there. It's going to take work and some self control, but that was always going to be the case. I was just fooling myself with the idea that, if I work hard and do a good job, health would take care of itself. And beyond personally, which I think the law was trying to address, I really see very little hope. Maybe something horrible, as was being discussed in the thread about the avian disease, will scare us sensible, but, beyond that, there is just too much inertia in keeping us on the grease to angioplasty to stent to bypass line or the grease to insulin line if that's your poison.

Mark
Last edited by hazelrah on Fri May 15, 2015 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...the process that creates this boredom that we see in the world now may very well be a self-perpetuating, unconscious form of brainwashing, created by a world totalitarian government based on money, ... Wallace Shawn
http://www.anginamonologues.net
User avatar
hazelrah
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby CarrotTopsRGreen » Fri May 15, 2015 12:25 pm

Our previous governor refused to get with the program, and from what I understand, this did mess things up for people who had to obtain their own insurance. I have been fortunate in that my employer pays for most of my premium. I elected a high-deductible plan ($2,500) with an HSA. I can save up to $3,350 in the HSA, which I can use, if necessary, toward my deductible. Unlike an FSA, I do not have to use all of that money this year; I can roll it over in perpetuity. The HSA is funded with pre-tax dollars. The only downside I see is my own resistance to using the insurance for such things as lab tests etc. since I know it will come either directly from my pocket or out of the HSA money I have saved. However, I am not of the belief that I have to have a mammogram every year and do not plan on having such tests as a colonoscopy, so not that big a deal. I did use some of the HSA money on my new glasses (expensive, since I have pretty severe vision problems).

I do object to the name "Affordable Care Act," since it did not make the premiums what I consider to be "affordable" for the average person.
CarrotTopsRGreen
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 11:19 am

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby dailycarbs » Fri May 15, 2015 12:35 pm

We have to keep in mind that for decades, health care reform was blocked every step of the way. We could have had something better before but for that. The hand that was dealt to Obama when he got this was so weak that he basically gave in to conservative Democrats and let them (with some Republicans) have their way with it to get something passed with the hope of improving it along the way. It's sad statement on the dysfunction of our political system but what was the alternative? Wait another 8 years to try anything at all? I would have been for a "sign on to Medicare" option as I think it was the best way for us self-insured people to get insured and also, being healthy, people like me could help fund Medicare for the elderly by paying in. But there was no way to make it fly and that's the hard political reality.
dailycarbs
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:19 am

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby f1jim » Fri May 15, 2015 1:23 pm

Ultimately, no system of health care can afford the costs of the terribly sick state most western countries find themselves in. The cost of the chronically ill will overwhelm any system. When 3/4 of the population have serious chronic disease what system can afford that? As Mark has noted, it ultimately comes down to each of us doing our part to stem this tsunami of sickness.
I read where a third of the newborns will be diabetic in their lifetime. What system can pay those costs and still remain viable. What's the percentage of people with heart disease? Cancer? We cannot fund this onslaught of sickness without the system, any system, collapsing under it's own weight.
ALL the major health care systems in the world are facing spiralling costs. Go to Google, pick a country and look up their health care expenditures and the forecasts for the future. Debating the types of health care systems is a lot like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We have to get our collective health back.
What would health care costs be if the 75-80% of the total were eliminated by diet and lifestyle interventions. They wouldn't matter and the issue wouldn't even come up as the costs would be affordable to all but a very small group. Ask yourself what it costs to treat a diabetic till they pass away. A person with heart disease. The preventable cancers. And that is just the beginning.
I watch as I drive down the highways around me. New Kaiser facilities, new Stanford Medical facilities, I guess it might impact the building trades if we didn't have to build so many medical facilities but that's about the only downside.
No one can afford the cost of everyone being ill! What health care system can pay for that?
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby pundit999 » Fri May 15, 2015 2:21 pm

Between my employer and me, we pay close to $20K per year in premiums. But I am still on the hook for the first $4-6k.

We earn good money but still have to think before getting a test or visiting the doctor.

Healthcare sucks in the US, at least in how much more it costs.

It is not Obamacare. Costs were out of control before that. And costs have been rising at a lower rate in the last few years since they started talking about Obamacare.

I am surprised that nobody thinks about the supply side and why more doctors are not being produced or imported much like what is being done in the software industry or others.

At least with Obamacare, you have a guaranty that you will not go bankrupt if you have an expensive medical condition and happen to lose your job.
pundit999
 
Posts: 1785
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:08 am
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby f1jim » Fri May 15, 2015 2:54 pm

You are correct about bankruptcy being less of a concern for individuals, I am also concerned about bankruptcy for the system! A very likely occurrence. We can all look at our individual circumstance and say we are fine but what about the system as a whole?
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby hazelrah » Fri May 15, 2015 3:22 pm

CarrotTopsRGreen wrote:Our previous governor refused to get with the program, and from what I understand, this did mess things up for people who had to obtain their own insurance. I have been fortunate in that my employer pays for most of my premium. I elected a high-deductible plan ($2,500) with an HSA. I can save up to $3,350 in the HSA, which I can use, if necessary, toward my deductible. Unlike an FSA, I do not have to use all of that money this year; I can roll it over in perpetuity. The HSA is funded with pre-tax dollars. The only downside I see is my own resistance to using the insurance for such things as lab tests etc. since I know it will come either directly from my pocket or out of the HSA money I have saved. However, I am not of the belief that I have to have a mammogram every year and do not plan on having such tests as a colonoscopy, so not that big a deal. I did use some of the HSA money on my new glasses (expensive, since I have pretty severe vision problems).

I do object to the name "Affordable Care Act," since it did not make the premiums what I consider to be "affordable" for the average person.


I don't think the, "Affordable," is supposed to refer to the premiums. It is intended to control the amount that a perovider can charge. The HSA is really a second 401K. The upper limit grows pretty quickly as you get close to retirement. I think I can almost amass $7K a year now. I try to use it as the primary healthcare payment mechanism. I think I would pay for a 3 day or 10 day in Santa Rosa with it if we ever get our act together enough to make it. I have no problem with it. To me it seems using it to learn how to maintain or regain health has a greater present value than bypass surgery which anybody would use it for. Plus, since it's your own money you actually assess the need for the healthcare you are getting before just letting the doctor's well meaning and profitable advice wash over you. I think HSAs should be required for everybody. The only way we'll ever fix the crisis is by using a market driven technique. We just need to find a way to make the prices of things actually reflect their true cost. I think we'll see what happens as the libertarian ethic begins to get stirred into our politcal stew. It's going to be interesting to see how it turns out. But you have to stay pretty strict to plan so you get to see as much of it as possible as it unfolds.

Mark
...the process that creates this boredom that we see in the world now may very well be a self-perpetuating, unconscious form of brainwashing, created by a world totalitarian government based on money, ... Wallace Shawn
http://www.anginamonologues.net
User avatar
hazelrah
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby Spiral » Fri May 15, 2015 6:25 pm

dailycarbs wrote:What the aca has done is to make sure the insurance company can't refuse to cover you due to a pre-existing condition. This is huge!


It is true that the aca does not allow insurance companies to refuse coverage to people. But it that was the end of it, it would be meaningless.

Think about it. Say I am the CEO of Spiral Health Insurance. Some guy with cardiovascular disease (already had a heart attack) comes to me and wants to buy a health insurance plan from me.

"The new law, the aca, says that you can't turn me down," says this person who wants health insurance.

"That's exactly right. I can't turn you down. If you want health insurance from me, your premium will be 10,000 dollars per week. Your deductible will be 1 million dollars."

Now, obviously, simply telling insurance companies that they can not refuse to enter into a contractual relationship with someone would not be much comfort, as the above thought experiment indicates.

So, what does the aca do to prevent Spiral Health Insurance from dancing away from this "no excluding pre-existing conditions" regulation? They limit the differential between how high the premium can be for a old, sick person compared to a young, healthy person. That's how.

This has positive and negative impacts, though. If a health insurance company can set its own premiums, without government regulation, it will offer lower premiums to the young and healthy and higher premiums to the old and sick. Under the aca, the health insurance corporations can still do this, but to a lesser extent. The differential between the most expensive premiums and the least expensive premiums can not be too high.

So, let's say you have a young and healthy 25 year old. He finds out that health insurance is going to cost more than he or she is willing to pay, partly because the health insurance corporations are forbidden from giving this young and healthy person as large of a price break for being young and healthy as was possible prior to the passage of the aca.

So, many young and healthies will say, "I don't think I will buy health insurance." Now, if a young, healthy person has an employer who will pay for a significant percentage of his health insurance premium, he'll probably go for it anyway, because it will be a decent deal for him, even in the short run. But someone who isn't offered much support or no support from his employer will want to pass on health insurance. After all, in some sense, he is being asked to pay part of the health insurance premium for someone older and sicker than he. And he's trying to save money to buy his first house or perhaps sock away some money for retirement.

That's where aca has both a carrot and a stick. The carrot is government subsidies for certain people. The stick is the individual mandate, a fine on people who decide not to purchase health insurance.

But where is the real increase in health insurance coverage happening? In Medicaid. Most of the people who were not previously covered with health insurance but who are covered now have signed up for Medicaid, which was expanded under the aca.

Sounds great, doesn't it. "Hey, I now have health insurance through Medicaid." Problem is that a large percentage of doctors don't take Medicaid patients. Why? Because the reimbursement rates are so low, many doctors feel that they actually lose money on every Medicaid patient they serve.

What about single payer? Why haven't we adopted that plan? Well, the way Medicaid actually works gives us a hint as to why we haven't adopted single payer. We could just say that everybody in the United States gets Medicaid coverage and then when trying to figure out how to pay all of those bills, just cut the reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals even lower than they are now.

This way, in theory, everyone is covered. But in practice, it's very difficult to find a doctor or hospital who will give you health care due to you being a Medicaid patient.

This gets back to Jim's point. When (nearly) everyone is in need of very expensive health care treatments due to their unhealthy lifestyles and when (nearly) everyone does not want to or is unable to pay more for the health care that they want, the government has to find a way of making people feel as though they are getting more health care than they are actually getting. The Medicaid expansion is an example of this. You might have to call a dozen doctors before you will finally find one who will take you as a patient if you have Medicaid. What if you don't really like that one doctor? Tough.

This isn't to say that our health care system was a bed of roses before the passage of the aca. There were all kinds of huge distortions in our health care system before the aca. The aca simply added a bunch more distortions to try to counter-act some of the existing distortions.

I personally think that we should go back to the principle that people should pay for their own health care and their own health insurance and that no one has the right to force anyone to provide them health care or health insurance. Health care and health insurance must be earned, not simply demanded as a right based on the ability of someone to have a pulse and a set of vocal chords. But my opinion is in the minority. So, we will continue with this clever dance where the government pretends to provide more health care to more people with the same (or slightly higher) amount of money, hoping no one will notice that the new health care system is just as dysfunctional as the old health care system.

My plan? Eat potatoes and stay away from the chicken wings. :D
User avatar
Spiral
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby CarrotTopsRGreen » Mon May 18, 2015 10:06 am

I personally think that we should go back to the principle that people should pay for their own health care and their own health insurance and that no one has the right to force anyone to provide them health care or health insurance. Health care and health insurance must be earned, not simply demanded as a right based on the ability of someone to have a pulse and a set of vocal chords. But my opinion is in the minority. So, we will continue with this clever dance where the government pretends to provide more health care to more people with the same (or slightly higher) amount of money, hoping no one will notice that the new health care system is just as dysfunctional as the old health care system.

the problem with that is that when the uninsured need health care, then they go to the emergency room. They then fill out forms with a hospital social worker to receive "medical assistance," which ultimately comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer. So we end up paying for it one way or the other. I would rather see people required to buy health insurance so that when they do get sick, they go instead to their primary care doctors or urgent care centers and the taxpayers are not asked to ante up.
CarrotTopsRGreen
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 11:19 am

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby Skip » Mon May 18, 2015 2:21 pm

With auto insurance, when you drive hazardously and get many tickets and accidents, your rates go up. With health care insurance you can drive hazardously and get many tickets ( an analogy, by leading an unhealthy lifestyle), and your rates are not affected. Where are the incentives?

If money is a concern, the best strategy in my opinion is to obtain catastrophic insurance and maintain a healthy lifestyle since you probably won't be needing the healthcare system that much and you avoid the "tax" of paying for people who don't take care of themselves.
"The fundamental principle of ethics is reverence for life" Albert Schweitzer
User avatar
Skip
 
Posts: 2230
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:19 am

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby stilllurking » Mon May 18, 2015 6:20 pm

Skip wrote:With auto insurance, when you drive hazardously and get many tickets and accidents, your rates go up. With health care insurance you can drive hazardously and get many tickets ( an analogy, by leading an unhealthy lifestyle), and your rates are not affected. Where are the incentives?

If money is a concern, the best strategy in my opinion is to obtain catastrophic insurance and maintain a healthy lifestyle since you probably won't be needing the healthcare system that much and you avoid the "tax" of paying for people who don't take care of themselves.


Driving in the US is considered a "privilege" and not a "right." If we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then I would say we have a right to health care. There is a big difference between health care and health insurance though. (And, I'd assume that the incentive would be to be in good health?)

ACA has driven the tendency for high deductible plans. This is fine for someone with assets to protect but the majority of people in the US don't have even $5,000 in liquid assets, and many live paycheck to paycheck. In my state, if you are single and in the 45-55 range, and earn $12,000 a year, then the Federal government will pay all the premium for a bronze plan,which is around $260 a month I think. But the deductible is over $5,000. How is someone who earns $12,000 a year supposed to come up with the deductible? And there's no expanded medicaid here. So it's a big scheme to transfer money from the government to insurance companies. Someone still is going to avoid going to the hospital under this plan, because they don't have the deductible, and usually don't even have the copay. So the insurance company is reaping, depending on the age of the customer, $2500-$4,000 a year from the government for tens of thousands or millions of people who will still, because of poverty, never use the "care." And they're forcing young people into the pool, so the people that previously could make a good bet to avoid insurance altogether, and hoped they didn't get in some type of accident that was their fault, are adding even more to the insurance co's coffers. Oh, and if the government didn't pay for the plan, then someone whose gross pay is $12,000 isn't going to pay $2600 in premiums, especially when the deductible is over $5,000.

The only "care" that people get free is "preventative care" which doesn't prevent anything, and if something's found, the treatment isn't necessarily covered without paying for the deductible first (and maybe never), anyway. So the money goes to insurance cos and doctors before patients get any actual "care" at all.

Insurance cos have figured a way to make some preexisting conditions de facto not covered, which is by having certain medications covered. In some states there are no insurance companies that cover AIDS medications so that's basically a death sentence. Same for certain cancers, etc.

Oh, and in my state there are no nationwide plans, and they cover $0 of out-of-network costs, so if someone travels to most other states in the country, they'd better not get in an accident or have a heart attack. This is particularly outrageous considering the fact that if you live out of the country, in many cases you still have to have a covered plan, and one that will cover you back in the US.

The more appropriate analogy to universal plan would be medicare, not medicaid, which is generally held to be successful, and has higher reimbursement rates. Most of the developed world has single payer or some type of universal care, and they spend much less than we do, even considering GDP, and they are healthier and live longer. Of course I agree that the best bet for the country is if people ate this way (even if they ate more vegetables, didn't smoke or drink and weighed less that would be an incredible improvement), but we also need to improve the access to health care and forget about health insurance.
stilllurking
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 2:09 pm

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby Skip » Mon May 18, 2015 8:27 pm

stilllurking wrote:ACA has driven the tendency for high deductible plans. This is fine for someone with assets to protect but the majority of people in the US don't have even $5,000 in liquid assets, and many live paycheck to paycheck.


If you are living paycheck to paycheck, you don't want to pay a higher premium that you can't afford. The catastrophic plans have the lowest premiums. The best strategy is to minimize your need to enter the health care system by staying healthy. If an accident happens, then you may have to file for bankruptcy if you can't afford to make some type of payment settlement.

I don't like it or agree with it, but that is the position many people have gone through, medical bankruptcy.
For me, the best solution would have been a "medicare for all" plan.
"The fundamental principle of ethics is reverence for life" Albert Schweitzer
User avatar
Skip
 
Posts: 2230
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:19 am

Re: The Insured Poor

Postby Spiral » Tue May 19, 2015 3:02 am

stilllurking wrote:The more appropriate analogy to universal plan would be medicare, not medicaid, which is generally held to be successful, and has higher reimbursement rates. Most of the developed world has single payer or some type of universal care, and they spend much less than we do, even considering GDP, and they are healthier and live longer.


One of the reasons why the US has not adopted a single payer health care plan is because the federal government spends so much money on Medicare for people aged 65 years and older.

Take a look at how much money Great Britain's government spend on their National Health Service, for all of its population, young and old, and compare that to how much money the United States spends on Medicare, just for people 65 and older. By almost any measurement, the United States federal government spends more than Great Britain.

In addition, employer paid health insurance is non-taxable, which is a very costly tax break. The ACA contained a "Cadillac tax" on expensive health insurance plans paid for by employers. However, it was unpopular among unions because many unions negotiated expensive health plans in their labor agreements.

Trying to get Americans to accept the quality and quantity of health care that the British or the French accept would be very, very difficult to do. Sure, many people in other nations live longer, but that has more to do with things other than their health care system. Americans eat more meat than almost any other nation in the world. Our homicide rate is higher too.

Also, one thing that the United States and Great Britain and lots of other nations have in common is this: Having a difficult time finding the money to pay for all of their health care programs.

Medicare is always running into funding issues and it is ripe with fraud. Doctors can bill Medicare patients for services not provided and the Senior Citizen won't know or care about it because the Senior Citizen isn't paying most of the bill, the federal government is.

Sure, we can raise Medicare taxes on our whole population. But many young people already feel like they are paying too many payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare to pay for the lifestyles of the elderly. Whether you are forcing a young person to pay more taxes to support the elderly (many of whom are wealthier than most young people) or whether you are forcing a young person to buy health insurance from a large corporation (non-profit or for profit), it's going to be unpopular.

There is no perfect solution because people basically want a lot of health care, but they don't want to pay for it. And when the health care they get does not solve all of their health problems, their coronary bypass surgery doesn't relive their chest pain, they want to sue the be-jesus out of the doctors and hospitals. So, the health care system becomes even more expensive when you add in all of the legal fees associated with it.

If we could convince people that health care is not a right, but is something that must be earned through the sweat of ones own brow, we would have a better system. Instead, we've got Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and a whole host of rules and regs that tie our private health insurance system in knots. You know, the ones that require health insurance companies to provide coverage for in-vitro fertilization on all of their plans so that the single 55 year old woman must pay for this coverage, even though she doesn't want it.
User avatar
Spiral
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana

Next

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.