Follow
Share
Read More
This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Find Care & Housing
1 2 3 4 5
Countrymouse,

First, anytime you get behind the wheel, you're required to have your drivers license, registration and proof of insurance with you. Lacking any of these can get you a hefty fine and possibly your car impounded if the cop really wanted to confiscate your car. If a car is impounded, it's up to the owner to prove they have a valid drivers license, proof of insurance, and the registration proving rightful ownership.

If you get behind the wheel of a car and have no insurance on your car, your car can be confiscated if you're involved in an accident. Not only can your car because if it's gated but you can also be slapped with a very heavy fines and maybe even some jail time. You can get in very serious trouble for not having insurance on your car before putting it on the road. I know Ohio is very strict about that for starters, they are very serious about drivers having required documents before even getting behind the wheel.

Now, let's say you're involved in an accident and you have your license, registration and proof of insurance but no health insurance. The bill will go to you once they find out who you are because all they have to do is run your plate during the investigation and find the car is registered to you. If you were at fault, you'll definitely be paying out of your own pocket for any damages you caused.

Now, let's say you're not at fault. There'll still be an investigation but the only difference is the other driver will be liable. Now, let's say the other driver doesn't have any insurance or maybe even not enough of it. Now it rolls over to your insurance company and your premiums may increase (unless you have accident forgiveness). With Allstate, I recall when I had three bikes on the road and every so often my money order would be returned and I would get a break of about three or four months. I don't know how they run things now, it's been years since I was with Allstate. However, I hear you where you mention a car veering out of control. Our town just had an incident where a car went left of center on one of our main highways and crashed head-on into an oncoming car going in the right direction. There was also another situation where there was a demented elderly person who got pulled over for going the wrong way on one of our interstates. I don't know how she ended up on the other side going the wrong way on I 71, but she did because I heard about it. She could've easily gotten in a head on collision on 71 and she could've killed not only herself but someone else. Needless to say, her license was permanently revoked and she's no longer allowed to drive but she may still have the car. It was said she won't let the car go, but at some time someone is going to have to take it from her because she can no longer drive it. I don't know what her family is going to do or how they will handle this, but you do have a very strong point on cars getting into accidents with unsuspecting victims. Our area has seemingly more accidents during summer and we just had a life flight pick up someone late last night. You can just about bet the patient was probably in some kind of car wreck, we have a lot of them through the summer but most of them seem to be out of town oddly enough from what I've noticed. Wherever there is high speed, there is more of a risk for accidents especially when 71 is now 70 mph, whereas it was 65 before. I think it should be dropped weight around to 50 mph and left there because lower speeds mean fewer accidents. Another thing to consider is higher speeds means your car becomes lighter on the road because the air passes underneath the car, lifting up the car a bit, making the car even easier to maneuver. Power steering is called "power" steering for a reason, because high-speed's make power steering even easier. If you don't believe me, take a new modern car and go out on the interstate for a spin. Now, tap on the break and pay close attention to the suspension as the car slightly lowers back toward the ground. See what I mean? I've driven enough that I notice this, cars have a suspension system for a reason, it serves a specific purpose through its function. It not only makes the ride easier, but it's also involved in weight adjustment on the tires as you're going down the road at a higher speed and your car gradually lifts up with the air passing not only around but also under your car. The force of that wind actually does lift up your car a bit as you're going down the interstate. This is what makes higher speeds and accidents so dangerous, so I hear you! Remember, my dad worked his whole life for Ford and we have no dummies in the family.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

In addition to what jacobsonbob was saying, retirees aren't spending a whole lot of money because they're probably trying to make sure they don't run out of it and retirees want to make sure they have enough money to carry them through the rest of their lives so they can leave an inheritance to their heirs and I don't blame them. Retirees aren't being selfish for not putting money back into the economy because the people need that money far more than the government does. Another thing to consider is that some retirees don't really have a very big retirement, you're only paid based on what's available to you at retirement. Social Security doesn't really pay much, it's up to you to have a backup savings plan. Sometimes people just don't have enough to really splurge whereas others do. Let's say you have a life flight nurse and a general laborer. You know the life flight nurse is obviously going to make far more than any general laborer out there, which also makes them easy targets for future predatory guardianship abuse. A flight nurse's income is a huge difference than just someone into general labor. Therefore, there are some people who can afford to splurge and others must be far more conservative to make sure their money lasts the rest of their lives. The last thing you want is to be scraping by and not be able to have enough money to survive should you run out because you can't get more unless you're doing something part time on the side to make more money. You also want to be very careful about stuffing money into a mattress, I heard a sad story where someone lost a few million dollars doing this when their children surprised them with a new mattress and the old one went to the dump. It wasn't until later the mother came clean and told about the hidden stash inside the mattress that was already taken to the dump. This was on the news but I don't know if the mattress was ever recovered with the money. It's not wise to stuff money in your mattress because you never know what will happen, so let this woman's very sad story be an expensive lesson learned.

As for having some types of insurance coverage that won't pay out when it's needed, that was covered in some of the YouTube videos under elder financial abuse, exploitation and predatory guardianship abuse. Somewhere along the line this was mentioned so I'm not a bit surprised by the Yahoo article jacobsonbob found. Retirees actually have every reason to be very concerned, especially with the information showing up on the World Wide Web we know as the Internet. The information is out there for the finding, we just need to find it and really wise up to what's going on that most people don't even know about. It sounds like someone may be just trying to throw people off guard through some of these articles and i'm not one of those kinds of people who will let down my guard now that I know what's really going on behind the publics backs and right under our noses. Abusive guardianship is a real white-collar crime that goes unpunished because abusive guardians are never held liable as evidence is destroyed in cases where after the last dollar, the patient conveniently dies and the elder's body is cremated to destroy evidence, all without the family knowing until later. and it's time the public start fighting back and bringing stuff like this to a screeching halt. I don't blame retirees for being ridiculously worried about running out of money and trying to put things in place to protect themselves because as you get older, you tend to become more vulnerable but not in all cases. I had someone who was like a grandpa to me and he was real sharp right to the end and even ran his own 16 acre farm in a neighboring town. Yes, he even had his own horses and we even went trail riding one day. We used to ride on the 16 acre farm and he did pretty much all the chores, and even maintained his own garden in his 70s or 80s. I love my pappy to this day even though he's gone. He was one of the few World War II vets even left and he was definitely wise for his age. Yes, he probably had some money tucked away and I don't blame him for saving his money and providing for his own needs. He was responsible enough to make sure he had enough money to last the rest of his life after retiring from a nearby steel mill he worked at for a number of years. He made a good retirement in order to have the horse farm, and he knew how to stay healthy. We can all learn quite a bit from our elders whether or not it fits our unique situations. Knowledge is power and our elders are our teachers. What they teach may not fit our unique situations right now, but someday you never know when you may end up needing that information. Yes, it's very wise to save now while you can because even a small savings can be built up with time
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

Countrymouse, here across the pond we, the paying patients, are footing the bills for those who are unable to pay or have no health insurance. Anyone can get free care at a hospital, this law was put into place by our former President Ronald Reagan decades ago.

I can understand the concept and am grateful that such a law exist for those who are actually living in poverty. It's the patients that feel the government owes them the care, who if you went to their house have newest and brightest items, brand new car, cable TV, iPhones, etc. That is what is wrong with this picture.
Helpful Answer (4)
Report

Satisfy my curiosity, please.

Supposing you are strolling down a street somewhere in America, minding your own business, and a car veers out of control and runs you over, splat, and you happen not to have any ID on you and you're clean unconscious and pretty mangled. So presumably the ambulance forms up, you are scraped off the pavement, taken to hospital and put back together.

Then the bill is presented, and the car driver's insurer pays; or your travel insurer pays; or you pay if you have the funds - but what if you haven't, and you're not insured, and the car driver can't be traced?

Or, what if it's an orphan child this happens to?

Do hospitals insure themselves against defaulting patients?
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

Today I read an article in Yahoo Finance that claimed retired people weren't spending enough money, saying that they are "depriving" themselves of the enjoyment they've earned, and also that they're "being selfish" by not putting it "back into the economy". (Of course everyone should realize that any money that's not stuffed into a mattress but is in bank accounts, investment accounts, stocks, bonds, etc. IS a part of the economy, but that's another issue.) It concluded that many older people are "falsely" worried about outliving their money so they spend it conservatively. Perhaps the writer hadn't priced AL or NH, and almost certainly hadn't read the comments on this forum posted by people who had LT care insurance that, because of some "technicality", refused to pay when the time came.
Helpful Answer (6)
Report

I agree! Jennegibbs
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Here is what I think is totally and completely immoral:

Healthcare for profit.

No other developed nation has such an immoral healthcare model. It is shameful that we do.

Correct the underlying immorality and many of the other questions go away.
Helpful Answer (8)
Report

I do NOT think you should get penalized for Finally getting an inheritance or a lump sum of money from a loved one or a Relative and I do NOT think its Immoral to hide that --- I do think its Immoral to hide it if you make 100k a year and are abusing the system - but if your someone like me who only makes (under 40k a year with 2 people) one is on Disability -- and You NEVER have been on vacation, you barely have enough money to go out to breakfast out - once a month, etc etc, I dont think its fair of Medicaid to take an insurance policy -- but thank you for posting Now Were NOT getting Life Insurance - why bother that would be 80.00 a month for my husband and a 18k policy, and 45.00 a month for me with a 80k policy -- why bother getting him Life insurance? we will get me one, not worth it to get him one -- Anyway -- to answer that question - No in certain circumstances and yes in certain circumstances -- I'm sure you can figure out which is which. -- and I don't mind at all if your the working stiff trying to make ends meet that you hide your assets at all --- sorry --- its just the way I feel.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

If everyone is equal, then everyone should be entitled to Medicaid - not just the losers. If you have 2 children, and one was a drug addict, robbed you, landed in jail, impregnated women. This son was a lazy, nasty, self-centered man, who never did anything for anyone. The other child got a high college degree and became a doctor who cared for children with cancer. You have a large estate. Do you leave it all to the lazy bum, or does everyone get an equal share? That is do you reward bad character?
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

We were referred to an eldercare attorney by one of the nicer nursing homes in our area. (They did not have the details on our grandpa's finances, which were that he had none.) The guy's Medicaid assistance package was close to $3K. Anyone who needs Medicaid does not have that kind of money, obviously.

What I've heard through older acquaintances in the know is that the well-to-do types in town start planning about 10 years before they anticipate needing this care. They funnel money around, get themselves onto waitlists at the best assisted living/nursing home facility 10-15 years before they will need it. They must be the ones paying $3000 for Medicaid planning.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

I really don't understand how anything can be "hidden" within the five year look back. They ask for five years of bank statements and any other assets you have which include insurance policies, bonds, stocks and shares. If these have been "hidden" within the look back, I would think there is a way Medicaid can find this out. Now, if it's done before the five year look back, than it's legal. No, I don't think its right. What money we have has been invested for our care. I plan on being able to afford Independent living or an AL. Medicaid only pays for an AL if you have privately paid, where I live, for two years and then it's iffy. Do I want my children to get my money while I live in in Nursing home under Medicaid, NO. They got what they needed growing up and now hold down jobs they can afford to live relatively comfortably. Their bills get paid. To make sure a spouse is comfortable if one of them ends up in a home, now that you may want to set something up but it has to be before the look back. I had a lawyer tell me that there is something that if one of us is in a coma (lets say) and needs longterm nursing, then the home will revert to the other spouse so Medicaid doesn't get it.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I think it's illegal.

I don't worry about who will inherit after I'm gone, I mean - if I can't take it with me, who cares. I only pray to have enough to support myself as long as I live. If the state steps in and takes over my care, I feel they will be entitled to whatever I have - it's not as if anyone else would already be caring for me. If I need the state to take care of my DH, then again, they can have whatever is left after I pass - but I can legally reserve the right to keep my home as long as I live and my IRA is mine alone and no one can legally take it from me. Shared assets? So they get half - they would be earning it as far as I can see. I have been advised that the state will only take enough to reimburse their expenditures; anything left afterwards is returned to the family.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

One thing we need to remember is that Medicaid is funding mainly by the States through taxes that us taxpayers pay, with some money coming in from the Federal Government.

Depending how much is coming into each State, the State can either cut programs or enhance programs. I need to keep a watch with the current administration to see what happens to Medicaid as the current passed bill in the U.S. House of Representatives is going to cut Medicaid about $880M. Hopefully the U.S. Senate will cross that off the bill.

Now, I can understand why some families want to hide assets so that Medicaid won't get their hands on it. But it is not fair to us taxpayers who are taking up the slack, and whose parents came from the generation to save for those "rainy days".

What is scary is that the baby boomer's grown children are not doing the same type of savings.... then what? We keep telling them to save, save, save, but it is ignored.... [sigh].
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I don't know if you learned of the new development of able accounts in the US. Able accounts are designed for people on federal benefits with permanent disabilities. Able accounts help people on fixed incomes be able to save more than just a very low the measly 1500 for Medicaid and 2000 for SSI because the state just doesn't allow you to save enough to cover bigger needs. The current caps keep people impoverished where they can never climb out of poverty. This is where able accounts came into play. These must be the savings accounts that were mentioned by Trump when he was talking about Social Security, Medicaid and something about savings accounts. I don't recall everything but he did say something about special savings accounts for medical expenses Medicare and Medicaid won't cover. Without able accounts, people's needs would be otherwise uncovered and they would go without some things they need. The new able program was restricted to your own state but it's now open to allow people to open able accounts in any state besides their own. You can only have one able account and you have a much higher savings limit.

You are allowed to own one home and if you're only on SSI and happen to be a single person, you can't rent the home, but you must live in it. It's been said that if anything happens to you and you were to die, Medicaid would have claim to the home for the proceeds for recovery purposes. The same goes for your able account, (but the money can very easily be used up before anything happens to you).

With an able account, you're allowed to cover certain qualified expenses including transportation. In Ohio, you can buy a car with the funds, this qualifies under transportation expenses.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Katiekate, I hope you haven't been listening too closely to Michael Moore about the NHS. We love it very much. It is very precious to us. It was set up to provide "universal health care from cradle to grave, free at the point of delivery." It is not universal, it does not provide health care from cradle to grave, and it is not free at the point of delivery; it is riddled with perverse incentives, insane inefficiencies and political nonsenses; but we love it all the same. If you break your leg or get cancer - or, for that matter, suffer the misfortune of infertility or gender dysphoria - the NHS will be there, and it will do its best, and you've got as good a chance of surviving as any other poor sod so mustn't grumble, eh. It survives on the stoicism of its patients and the incredible self-sacrifice of roughly half of its staff (the other half being either at home on fully-paid sick leave or in the subsidised canteen feeding its face). And it has just been attacked by this wretched ransom virus, which gives you a classic case in point: those NHS Trusts which fell victim have blamed lack of government funding. But they haven't explained how the other trusts, which were not affected, managed to install the critical MicroSoft patch in spite of having the same budget. It's so predictable: their response to any perceived problem is not to address their own utter uselessness and inept management but to demand more money.

In control of the costs? Are you kidding? You mean they *meant* this shambles to happen?

I'm not sure, but I believe that other large European countries like Germany and France operate insurance-based systems. Don't know about Japan - but based on childish stereotyping I guess that their main health strategy involves people being expected to pull themselves together and show moral fibre. Being ninety in that country is considered no excuse for not running marathons or climbing Mount Fuji.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I am sorry you felt the need to get political about this. I am concerned for those who need assistance will suffer because well over 50% of our population is receiving some sort of assistance. There is just so much that the average taxpayer can afford before our whole system crumbles. I don't know the answer but I do know that something has got to give.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

You do realize that a stipend will never cover even a fraction of medical insurance?

Until we have universal health care, there is no way to control the for profit health care business. Yes...business. There is no reason a doctor in a speciliaty needs to get $1mill a year (I know several that do). There is no reason a business with stock holders should be delivering medical aid to only the wealthy that can pay these outrageous prices!

The vast majority of the worlds developed nations have universal healthcare. AND. .they have control of the costs. AND. Everyone gets the care they need. Yeah..if you want elective surgery you will have to wait in line or pay to go somewhere else to get it. BUT, no one goes without the care they need. Unlike here

We still have millions without access to health care. And..if the GOP get there way..we will have tens of millions more ...probably everyone Mom and Dad..as they all have preexisting conditions that will price them completely out of any insurance at all.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

In 2017 74 million people are on Medicaid. Millions were put on Medicaid when the Affordable Care act went into effect because they could not afford the insurance premiums and would be penalized for not  having insurance. No explanation has been given as to why this was done instead of giving them the stipends. Has this slowed down the application process? Has it affected the benefits available to seniors? What will this do to seniors since we are living so much longer and therefore many more are developing Dementia and all kinds of Alzheimer's that use up all our resources long before we die? Eventually someone is going to have to pay the piper. Then where will this leave us?
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

AKDaughter, I guess you're right. I forgot to mention that I transferred the folks' money when applying for VA benefits for Dad, as there was no look-back period in force at that time.  After Dad died, Mom continues to receive 1/2 benefits; that, combined with her SSI benefits, enables her to live more than 10 years on her 'nest egg' w/o Medicaid. That's the part that can feel 'unethical' or 'immoral'.......but hey, Dad served his country in WWII and was entitled to a benefit, in my opinion. 

I put their $$$ in my name because I am the one who pays the bills, gets the mail, etc. I didn't know what else TO do with it!! 
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

Susan, how sad is it that $4,500 per month is considered cheap?? A nursing home here in Colorado is approximately $8500 per month for a private room/private pay. I am hoping to God that mom will not require a NH. She's on the progressive dementia road right now, but the ALF has a memory care unit if necessary. The costs are about $2000/month more than the ALF rates.

It was kind of you to fork out $400 per month of your own money to keep your mom comfortable in a private room. There is NO WAY my mother would EVER be 'compatible' with a roommate...........LOL.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

Lealonnie1, what you have done is not hiding assets. What many of us think is wrong is when people transfer assets to others and then have Medicaid pay their costs. You plan to use the 400K to provide care for your parents. As long as you exhaust the 400K, you are not hiding anything. I am not sure why you wanted to put all of the money into your accounts, but that is not any different than what I am doing with my mom's money. It is still in her name, but POD to her heirs. If the money runs out, she will need to have Medicaid and the heirs will get nothing.
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

lealonnie - you are fortunate that your Mom's care expenses are so low. The NH my mother was in (in a small town in Michigan, not even a huge, fancy place) was $7,000-$8,000 per month for a single person on private pay. When she required a private room due to lack of compatible roommates (and no empty double occupancy Medicaid rooms), I had to move her to a private room at my own expense, which meant paying $400+ a month out of my own pocket, over and above her SS income and Medicaid coverage.

I understand there's a difference between ALF and NH, but at least your mom is still able to do just ALF, which affords her some independence.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

I 'hid' my folks' hard earned money back in 2014 when my dad had to go into Assisted Living after breaking a hip. Mom had to go with him as well. I cashed out their stocks and put the $400K in my name (after being given financial POA as an only child). Here's the deal: I will pay for my folks' care until their death, using the $400K that is their's to begin with. IF that money runs out, I will apply for Medicaid. Their $400K will definitely last longer than the 5 year look-back period that Medicaid employs. Is that 'immoral' or 'unethical'? I don't know and I don't frankly care. What I DO know is that ALFs and NHs are extraordinarily overpriced, so unless a person has a million dollars or more, they may not be able to live in such a facility for extended years! I took steps in 2014 to prepare for my mother living to be 100 years old, since longevity runs in her family. She's 90 right now, and may well live another 10 years, meaning her money will have run out at 98 years old. Her ALF costs are currently $4,500 a month (Dad died in 2015) and only going UP from there. If Medicaid needs to kick in and she needs to be moved as a result, then so be it. I refuse to feel 'guilty' or 'unethical' since I will have used up every penny the folks' earned honestly and ethically during their working lives. Maybe if the government stepped in and regulated the costs of elder care in general, then we wouldn't need to 'hide assets' or do all the things we NEED to do to keep our loved ones safe and secure in their final years.
Helpful Answer (5)
Report

When our economy is doing well, there are many who also do well, but there are those who for one reason or another are not able to make as much money due to sickness, divorce, choices, businesses closing, poor education, and many other valid reasons. A nation will not do well if it does not take care the lesser blessed. Everyone cannot be wealthy and that makes us wonder about capitalism. BUT if capitalists are moral, they will give back through programs for those who have less. That is the only way, in my opinion, that capitalism will work. A rich country should try to make life better for all. I see Medicaid Estate Recovery as confiscation. Many people live well and do not have to scrimp and save and do without like so many others. Our country should stop giving to those outside until our people are taken care of and I don't mean being put in bad nursing homes and then have their only possession, the old home place that the children love, ripped from them because they are handicapped by age, bad health or otherwise. This is a great moral problem for all countries and we Americans should try to solve it now as we improve our economy before we end up like China's old people who absolutely have nowhere to go. Philanthropy is not the same as socialism. It is caring and helping, employing moral ways to make our country great again. After taking care of our own we should then lead the world in doing the same. Social Security, at first, was only for those in critical need and it and Medicare were not a retirement plans. Bad leadership and bad planning has been a big part of things getting off track. Churches used to be a large part of helping the needy until the government took over, also. We can't get back to that point, but we need to begin making reasonable plans for the future that work to make life livable for all, NOT just for the "better off" people. Class creeps in and separates us, too, due to what we have and own.
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

No more immoral than it is for medical to pay inflated costs for baby sitting then have every member of the family that ever got any thing to pay it back!! : ((
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

I do not think it is immoral to try to shield assets from Medicaid. I do think it is immoral to take the assets the elder needs for their own care...and then not be there to provide all that care yourself.
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

I don't think every person that transfers has that in mind. In my case it is simply a matter of wanting each child to be treated equally and to have the money when they need it which is now for some. There is no indication he will even need Medicaid I just want to understand the what if's
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

Well the way I think about this is that none of us knew how much it "cost being elderly". We were never taught this in school, and unless we witness this first hand with older relatives, most of us don't have the knowledge.

For me, I never knew that Medicaid would pay for all the care for someone who cannot afford a nursing home until I found this website forum. It was an eye opener, but something I was glad was there in case someone outlives their savings. With todays elders living more and more into their 90's and early 100's, that could happen to any one of us.

I know I was in sticker shock head spinning mode when I found out how expensive it was to have caregivers around the clock for my Dad. When one sees $30/hr it doesn't sound all that bad, until you figure the cost for 24 hours, seven days a week. YIKES !!

Another sticker shock was the cost of Independent Living and Assisted Living. Ok, much less expensive then 24 hour caregivers, but still pricey.

I was in panic city regarding myself.... being an only child and never had children... I will need to pay someone to take care of me in my declining years, if I reach that point. I had socked away a healthy amount of savings, but what if *I* outlive my savings?
Helpful Answer (4)
Report

Most people apply for Medicaid because they need it. Perhaps they do not like doing it at all. People who have more than plenty should not gripe about lower income people getting help from Medicaid. In fact they should not get $1500 to $2,000 a month SS when they do not need it. SS started as a means to help people in emergencies and those in continual neediness, not for retirement. We give plenty to other countries and to immigrants who come here due to poor conditions in their homelands. I say help out our own people first, "America First" is our slogan now, "The poor will always be with you," (Biblical quote), so we should be prepared to help them!!!! Medicaid Estate Recovery is the same as confiscation in my opinion and the government should be made to stop waste in many many areas so it can use our tax money to actually help real needy people! Also government should educate people about Medicate Estate Recovery when they become seniors, so they can know about it and not be surprised when they are charged $100,000 to pay bills patients are not aware of which seems unlawful. This just happened to my sister-in-law's sister and husband who were confined to a nursing home for several years.
Helpful Answer (4)
Report

Sorry, just chewing this over while I was moving my seedlings back indoors...

So, essentially you inadvertently made your husband co-owner of the business. Well. Can Medicaid force the closure of a business to realise the asset for the applicant? Especially given that that would mean putting your employee out of work.

Could they require you to "buy him out"? And how would they determine the value of his share? After all this is operating capital, it's not spare cash.

Don't just lie down and take it. There must be some way round.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

1 2 3 4 5
This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Ask a Question
Subscribe to
Our Newsletter