Report: Only 10,000 Will Lose Out Under Obamacare

A report out of Congress says claims that millions will lose health insurance coverage in 2014 are greatly exaggerated.

How many people are losing the health insurance they had because of Obamacare and won’t be able to renew it or replace it with something better?

Not very many, says a report by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce — about 10,000 people.

The report, issued in December, says:

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act claim that 4 [million] to 5 million people will lose their health insurance coverage next year because of the law. They cite as evidence a report by The Associated Press that estimated that 4.7 million Americans have received or will receive notices canceling their 2013 health insurance plans.

But that’s faulty reasoning, the report says, and it instead came to these conclusions:

  • Half of the 4.7 million will have the option to renew the plans they had in 2013, because of a change in the rules.
  • Of the remaining 2.35 million, 60 percent “will be able to buy subsidized coverage through the new health exchanges or enroll in Medicaid.” That’s based on a Kaiser Family Foundation estimate that half the people who buy individual policies will be eligible for tax credits to help them pay for premiums. Also, Medicaid has been expanded in some states under Obamacare.
  • Also, the report says, “Individuals who received cancellation notices are eligible to apply for a hardship exemption and purchase catastrophic health plans typically offered only to individuals under 30.”

So, with so many options to buy insurance, very few people will be unable to continue health insurance coverage, the report says. This sums it up:

Complete data on policy renewals and enrollment in new insurance plans are not yet available. But the actual number of individuals who receive a cancellation notice, do not sign up for new insurance in 2014, and lack the option to do so at affordable prices will likely be less than 10,000. Over 99 percent of the individuals receiving cancellation notices will have the option to renew their 2013 policies, enroll in subsidized coverage through the marketplaces or Medicaid, or purchase a low-cost catastrophic plan, and many have already done so.

George Zornick wrote on the liberal Plum Line blog of The Washington Post:

As we’ve noted, Republicans have had an awful hard time finding people who completely lost coverage because of the ACA. (Think of the man who starred in Americans for Prosperity ads last week and whose story still hasn’t been fully explained.) Perhaps it’s because there just aren’t that many of them.

We’ll all find out for sure at some point in time. In my case, my insurance provider was ready to roll me into a different plan on Jan. 1. Instead, I purchased a new policy via at a cost savings of 45 percent. I make too much money to be eligible for a subsidy, so other people could get an ever better price.

Have you benefited from Obamacare? Or are you one of those who lost coverage and can’t replace it. Let us know in the comments below or on our Facebook page.

Stacy Johnson

It's not the usual blah, blah, blah

I know... every site you visit wants you to subscribe to their newsletter. But our news and advice is actually worth reading! For 25 years, I've been making people richer without making their eyes glaze over. Take 5 seconds and join our family by clicking here. You'll be glad you did. I guarantee it!

More Money Talks News


  • Cindy

    The problem with this is that you fail to discuss people like me who had a plan that I was happy with, I then received a cancellation notice from my carrier because I did not have maternity coverage (I am 53 years old) and in order to get new coverage I have to pay double for my premium. There are millions of us in this position. It is not right to throw us under the bus to pay for others. I am still not clear how America will pay for the millions of subsidies for others. Oh just increase my taxes too? This is terrible!

    • Old Highland Guy

      I think you, being intelligent, understand the problem, thank you. As I have said before, Obama is a POS!
      Now, if the less intelligent will just figure it out……………………..

  • Old Highland Guy

    I have friends, a husband and wife, whom are retired, in their 60’s, upper middle class, their insurace was cancelled and now they had to hustle around to find something to cover them. They took 2 weeks to find a dirt class insurance to cover their most minimal needs and now they have maternity coverage. Their premium doubled, doubled! They were happy with what they had bu Obama had to come along and screw them.
    Also, my brother-in-law, in his 70’s, has had his canceled and he and his wife are still not covered. They are still working on it but they don’t see why they need maternitiy coverage. This has caused them untold stress.
    OBama is a useless POS!

    • bahona

      Don’t people in their 60’s and 70’s get Medicare? Part A is free & covers major meidcal/hospitalization, so why are they even buying insurance?

  • Synthetic1

    I do feel for Cindy, though my age and my wife’s age puts us in a similar “no-way-pregnancy” category, those cherry picking policies are best gone under a meaningful national health care system. There are many other ways, if they were allowed, for insurance companies to form cherry picking policies base on age (say ages 30 to 49 only and no other existing health problems) and other characteristics.

    You might love your premiums in your exclusionary policy until you hit 60, when your rates triple because all the young and healthy are on a much cheaper exclusionary policy. It’s a false security or benefit.

    If ACA fully blossoms, most real premiums will drift down to about half of today’s rates because:
    – everyone will pay into the system
    – no one will be excluded from the system
    – medical costs will drift down to actual market prices (no more $400 bags of saline, a true $15/bag product)
    – populations living in ACA type countries actually are healthier, statistically, than we in the USA, yet we in the USA now pay about twice per capita in medical care than the 36 other countries using a national healthcare system. A healthier population costs less to care for than a sicker population

    So, done right, ACA can reduce cost and improve health, and eliminate health care related bankruptcies (currently the country’s most common cause of financial failure) to zero. ACA can reduce human suffering in many ways.

    People in Cindy’s position may feel good about their current policy, but just one major illness and they will be out on the street searching for a hugely expensive policy which would likely exclude their current illness. We know two close friends in that boat
    – both now insurable under ACA.

    • nitemare2

      Your image of the reality is liberal to say the least.
      Employer insurance always has a preexisting health problem clause which I have
      been the recipient of several times. You are not rejected in other words. They cannot
      increase your premiums because of age in an employer based plan. And this is
      who will be losing their policies per the CBO to the tune of 50 million next
      year. If you look at the studies done by Harvard and Duke University you will
      see all the facts about the “medical bankruptcy” tales were in fact
      caused by other financial issues as well. Your statement about it being the #1
      cause is like the Presidents promises not factually true. If someone has a $6000 $10000
      deducible as many of the Obamacare plans do, you will not see a zero bankruptcy
      number. Poor financial handling is not changed through any Govt. plan hell they
      can’t even handle the country’s money hence the deficit and $17 trillion
      debt. So how can the ACA be considered done right? Everyday new regulations are being added to correct or change the law was badly written. The law is written to bailout the insurance companiesif the enrollee numbers do not reach the promised amount. How will this lowerany costs? How will the loss of Doctors do to your idea of what they should
      make do anything except lower the quality of healthcare? The largest numbers of those who have enrolled are now on Medicaid and a study just released showsthat it has caused an increase of emergency room visits by 40% in Oregon where the study was done how will that lower any costs the President and Liberals
      said it would cut ER usage by 40%. Many of those 36 countries you want to use as an example are having trouble paying for their coverage the people complain about quality and waiting times for care just remember other countries do not record the results of their coverage as the US does, example infant mortality
      many of these “healthier” countries do not count an infant if it dies before its first birthday, we count every living newborn no matter how premature it is.
      Most Obamacare plans will only include doctors in your local neighborhood. ObamaCare dubs these
      “Exclusive Provider Organizations”; one of the more affordable such plans has seven pediatricians (not practices, seven actual doctors) for a county with roughly 250,000 children. Does any of the liberal media report these things? So
      because of people who can’t get insurance others have to pay higher premiums and/or get less or coverage they don’t want, instead of just having a high risk pool as they do with auto insurance so that those in the pool distribute their
      cost evenly. Oh wait that is the liberal/progressive/democrat ideology of let someone else pay for me.

      • Synthetic1

        nightmare2 is probably professionally employed or employed in a largely professional organization. What you describe was largely, though not predominately, common among firms in the past but, due to large increases in healthcare costs, is a feature set that has been chipped away at over the last 30 years. I don’t have exact facts or figures but it seems to be common knowledge that healthcare plans in America have increased in cost while decreased in availability, and that’s in relatively high-flying firms and organizations.

        The lower tier organizations have walked in large numbers from paying or subsidizing for healthcare insurance for employees. Very small organizations are on their own in the marketplace, driving up cost, driving down coverage quality, and in many cases, allowing only cherry picking policies that keeps people happy until they have a claim.
        The same phenomena is at work in auto insurance in low-regulated states where insurers offer cheap policies that frankly do not pay off on the comprehensive side of the policy.

        I do have reference, the World Health Organization (WHO), where their studies place the USA as 37th in quality of healthcare, at a cost that is double the number 1 country, France, per capita cost. Why is France performing much better than the USA (and 100 other nations)? At half the cost? Because France does now what ACA is designed to do:
        – insure everyone
        – control costs (in France, that $400 bag of saline costs less than $9.00)
        – increase preventative care including prenatal care for all
        – eliminate outrageous overcharges (among many wild charges, my wife was charged $37 per dose for Tylenol
        after giving birth to our son, and that was the early 90’s. More recently, our housekeeper was charged $4,700
        for cleaning of abrasions – minor road rash – during her 2 hours, mostly waiting, in a local ER. What?

        Others may have differing opinions than me but I think that there is an overriding benefit of a national healthcare system that goes far beyond just the numbers presented by WHO, and that is the humanitarian consideration; poor people,poor kids, sick people and everyone else, should have reasonable healthcare. It is the right thing to do.

        To me this is not a liberal-conservative problem that our present political condition demands it to be,but rather
        a respect for human life at a cost that is actually cheaper than our present, increasing bloated and increasingly exclusionary system is delivering.

        • Well said, Synthetic1. I’ve said in many posts virtually the same: This is a healthcare/human rights problem, not a political one.

          This battle has been ongoing for decades: before Obamacare, before the tea party and long before Fox decided to use it as a marketing tool.

          The truth is that Obamacare may not be the ideal solution. But leaving the prior system in place was completely intolerable. Anyone suggesting otherwise may mean well, but they’re defending the indefensible and more than likely don’t really understand the problem, much less potential solutions.

          • Malcom Treadway

            You’re in the tank, Stacy Johnson. TEA Party and FOX marketing tool, rather than voices of opposition with strongly held beliefs? You trivialize and endeavor to diminish dissenting voices? You sir, are without clothes. With ALL the corruption it took to pass this monstrosity, and you pander with THAT? You are without any credibility.

          • Heather

            So let’s replace an intolerable system with another intolerable system, and in a Ponzi scheme fashion to boot. Makes sense… NOT! –(Sarcasm extremely intented)

            A better solution would be to reduce our government down to a more manageable size.
            Fight to maintain independence and individual rights. Independent
            societies reap the benefits of freedom and productivity.

            The USA is a Constitutional Republic protecting individual rights. Democracy or “Mob Rule” is when the people get what they want when they want with no regard for individual rights, hence minorities suffer (currently the productive are becoming a minority in the USA, hence they are being targeted – most likely because they’re the only ones with money to pay for all these expensive government programs). History repetitively shows democracy doesn’t work because the productive either flee or join the non-productive (eventually the productive won’t be able to afford such an expensive growing government). At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when asked by a women “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?”, Benjamin Franklin replied “A Republic, if you can keep it”. Rome fell well the people realized they could vote themselves “bread and circuses”. We too are falling under Democracy as a growing number of people vote for politicians who give the most handouts – at the expense of the productive mind you (someone has to pay for these programs and operation of a growing government). Eventually our growing government will evolve into a Monarchy as the people give up their rights in exchange for handouts. The government will continue to grow as our society become more and more dependent on the almighty and powerful government (the government will use any means necessary to enforce its survival – never ending tax hikes; more rules, laws, regulations; infringement upon peoples rights to defend themselves, etc.). This will lead to a Revolution as the government becomes too expensive to support. The people will stand and fight for their rights or die of starvation in a world of rape, theft, and other numerous criminal activities. The people will eventually rise up, most likely as a republic, only to fall under democracy again, which will evolve into a Monarchy again, which will lead to a Revolution again – this cycle repeats. Take a look at history to find indicators of this cycle. History has a habit of repeating itself.

        • nitemare2

          You and Stacey are both mistaken in your assumptions. The benefits were and are still used as tools to hire good employees or in place of wage increases. You seem to think that this is idea is no longer being used. If that is the case it is because the worker is looking for higher wages only or instead of. What do you consider “professionally employed or employed in a largely professional organization” truck driver, welder, buyer, warehouse forklift operator, or dispatcher all non-union.
          Why don’t you have any exact figures because if it is true there must by facts to prove your statement on why costs have increased. How about these facts. medical technology is a significant contributor to higher health care costs in the US we spend between 38 and 65% on this, Europe spends 15% should we cut out r&d on new technology? An increasingly important factor driving hospital price increases is consolidation of the hospital industry. Hospital mergers and acquisitions jumped by 33 percent between 2009 and 2010. Research shows that hospital market concentration leads to increases in the price of hospital care. In fact, price increases exceeded 20 percent when mergers occurred in concentrated markets and this is what the ACA wants. How about the $360 billion spent annually for administrative costs as estimated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the fact that 85 percent of excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the ACA insurance system.

          As for your auto insurance statement I give you this. If a state requires auto insurance it is liability insurance of which DC has the lowest at 10/25/5 and I will remind you they are a Democrat controlled govt. A study done by Dr Robert Maril showed that, in a poor area of Arizona, 44% said they had trouble buying food or paying rent due to auto insurance. A survey done by the Montana DPHHS showed 12 of the 96 surveyed said auto insurance was a reason for needing food stamps. so I guess in the liberal mind we should what be providing free auto insurance as well. If the people want low liability costs don’t cry about how they pay out when used.
          I hate to break your bubble but the WHO uses the numbers given to them by each country and I repeat it is not uniform in any way, every country calculates their figures in a different manner. So costs and results are not apples to apples.
          The $37 dollar Tylenol was always said by the liberals to pay for the people who didn’t pay, now that will not change because you will still have 15 million illegals receiving hospital care and not paying and the subsidies will cost taxpayers dollars on top of that, so now the $37 dollars that was paid for by your insurance will be tax increases. Same with the house keeper (nice to be able to afford one) insurance costs just again passed on to the taxpayer
          You really believe this will not be a bloated, corrupt, system I remind you of all the bloat and corruption in the IRS, SS, Medicare, VA, GSA, food stamps, welfare and any Federal org or program.
          And Stacey as a self professed economics expert you can not think of any other form of system that would provide healthcare, not coverage which is all the ACA really does? How about Clinics, Health care Savings accounts handled much like Medicare or SS. The same type of account to replace the SS for working people would give them a much higher retirement then the system now in place for most it would be over a $million at a minimum of only $100 per month for the average workers years working.
          Everything liberals use as facts seems to be because someone is making to much money greedy or some variation, called Wealth Inequality a favorite as the new Mayor of NYC just thumped his chest and ranted about. So explain how you and he are going to correct this, free stuff for everyone paid for by the rich, that doesn’t calculate to be achievable, as not enough money even if you take it all. Are you going to set income limits and have anything above them taken by the Govt.? Do you want anyone to strive to be rich or are you striving to have everyone poor? Or just everyone equal and in the middle I’m sure that will make people want to invent and create new companies. So tell how is this liberal world that you and Stacey dream about going to work.

    • Draftdog

      Other countries successful socialized medicine does not even resemble Obamacare or ACA. They are truly socialized medicine not some patchwork, hodgepodge conglomeration put together to avoid looking like it was raising taxes to provide health care for the poor. If socialized medicine is your goal then go to Australia; copy their very successful product, then come back here and raise taxes to pay for it. Forcing people to buy insurance at an artificially inflated price is nothing but a tax hike on healthy people with requard to income only if you are very poor. This lands the burden of our “socialized medicine” squarely on the shoulders of the healthy middle class. And, in case you haven’t noticed, since Obama has taken office, the middle class has been shrinking at an alarming rate.

    • Malcom Treadway

      With all due respect, Synthetic1, you’re just parroting administration talking points and you are lost in the weeds, if you believe what you’ve written. Robertscare is unconstitutional, regardless of John Roberts’ twisted “it’s a tax, so it’s legit” thinking. And Obama/Roberts Care is NOT designed to work as you see it: it is designed to cause insurance companies to go out of business. It is designed to become A SINGLE PAYER (THOSE ARE OBAMA’S OWN WORDS FROM 10 YEARS AGO. GOOGLE IT), a.k.a. MONOPOLISTIC, totally government-run entity to control your only source of health care – which is a control of your Constitutionally mandated property rights (your body).

  • stinger

    It is unfortunate that MoneyTalkNews continues to support Obamacare and policy rather than at least stay neutral and support the facts on both sides. For me, it dilutes the integrity of this complete newsletter, with this topic or any other.

    • Malcom Treadway

      My thoughts as well. MTN has exposed itself as an advocate, rather than an unbiased source of “Money Talk.” That’s something to keep in mind when reading all future stories.

  • Jeannie Pierce

    I’m on the other side. My insurance was costing me 51% of my income. I’m not a smoker and I don’t have any health issues except a little arthritis in my knee. Normal wear and tear for a 56 year old. I didn’t dare cancel it though since I might not be able to get coverage elsewhere. Being able to get coverage through the marketplace at a cheaper rate was a God send to me. I also qualified for a subsidy.

    • nitemare2

      So someone else will pay for you. And you are alright with that ideology. Would it not have made better sense if the cost was evenly distributed between those like you who needed a cheaper policy. Something called a high risk pool instead of forcing everyone into Govt. healthcare.

      • AnIndependentwithabrain

        You mean like us paying for bank bailouts, tax credits making corporations pay zero taxes, auto bailouts?

        • nitemare2

          Yeah and I didn’t agree with those bailouts as I don’t agree with the Farm bill which gives money to farmers to not grow items that will not sell or money to large corporate farms. Subsidies are wrong for any private entity. The billions given to green energy companies have been thrown done a rabbit hole, as most of them have failed.

      • jypsync

        I didn’t say I was getting it for free. I now pay a better price, that is now less than my mortgage payment, which is what I was paying before. I’ve worked and paid taxes, social security, donated my time and money to various causes since I was 14. I’m not a “free-loader” I was just being taken advantage of by my insurance company. I’ve never ever qualified for or taken any benefits off the government in my lifetime, so this is the first time I’ve applied for any “assistance.” I’m not the enemy, just an honest, hard working tax payer that happens to benefit from the new program. I don’t think it’s perfect, but it’s at least addressing a problem and trying to come up with a plan.

        • nitemare2

          Are you getting a subsidy? If you could not get insurance there had to be a reason and by law even before the ACA they had to tell you why. So that would make me believe you were in the high risk category. And the problem it is addressing is causing others to lose their insurance. At a greater rate then those enrolling. So where does the choice of the individual come in. Liberals want freedom to chose abortion, drug use and other things but wants to stop my choice of picking insurance or not. You say you have never gotten anything and paid in all these years. So I guess that means you are owed? I paid all those years served in the military survived Vietnam, but still don’t feel the govt taxpayer owes me anything other than the opportunity to work and earn whatever I possibly can and want. That’s the difference between liberals and conservatives liberals believe they are owed for breathing and everyone else should pay for them

          • jypsync

            I have always had insurance. The last 6 years have been through my deceased husband’s policy. I don’t feel I’m owed anything, I was just stating that I’ve never drawn on any public assistance from the government. The reason I qualify is due to my income and that my other insurance was costing me 51% of my income.

          • nitemare2

            And again someone else has to pay for you. The subsidies that the democrats so freely hand out come out of the taxpayers pockets, instead of fixing the real problems they just raise taxes on someone. The greatest example as to why this law will never work efficiently is what has been found by the latest study on the Federal education system which shows that the average education levels are either flat or dropping over the last 40 years. One size does not fit all states, what was good for Ma. is not good for the nation. The only way to force lower rates is competition across state lines the same as auto insurance. Under the ACA you have no competition, many states like NC has 1 choice in the exchanges. But choice and competition are dirty words to the Liberals and Obama.

      • jypsync

        By the way, why am I high risk?

  • Malcom Treadway

    EVERY subsidized enrollee = Some taxpayer’s pocket picked. EVERY Medicaid enrollee = Some taxpayer’s pocket picked. The plan was: to have those young and healthy “under 30 year olds” pay for FULL plans, in order to pay for those – that NOW, INSTEAD, require the aforementioned waivers. AND, the NOW Catastrophic plans (which one would assume COST LESS) hastily offered to the aforementioned “under 30’s” undermines the ACA. AND, the insurance company plans that were ruled void, that the administration NOW says that they can offer for ONE MORE YEAR (gotta get past that pesky mid-term election, don’tcha know). NO LONGER EXIST. AND – all of these “Executive Actions” changing this part of the law, that part of the law, stalling others parts of the law – are themselves, ILLEGAL. What is your party registration, Ms. Datko?

  • Draftdog

    Are you on Obama’s payroll MTN? You had better get neutral in a hurry. I’m only one, but I will be one gone if you don’t start playing on a level field. As for Karen Datko, she has lost all credibility and one reader.

  • Zxer91

    Oh according to Democrats. Lol ! Yeah, that’s reassuring !

  • Heather

    No body wants Obamacare because no body wants to support a Ponzi scheme.

    • Jason

      You seem to have missed the point. There is no “Obamacare insurance”. The exchanges are simply a place to purchase private insurance. In my county that would be Blue Cross / Blue Shield. My friend has purchased a Blue Cross / Blue Shield policy directly from BCBS instead of through the exchange. He is buying the same insurance but giving up the tax credit. This same friend has no problem taking tax deductions like the standard deduction, personal exemptions, mortgage tax credit, 401K deductions, charitable giving, etc. However, he is refusing the tax credit to help buy individual private insurance through the exchange but then complaining about the cost of insurance. He is doing all of this because he believes the BS on conservative talk radio that imply that insurance purchased through the exchange is “government insurance” and is in some way inferior to private insurance.

  • BomberBuck

    Here’s the first sentence from yet another biased article from MoneyTalksNews in support of Obamacare: “How many people are losing the health insurance they had because of Obamacare and won’t be able to renew it or replace it with something better?”

    There’s that old canard again…”you’ll like Obamacare, it’s better.” Who determines what is “better?” Why does the government assume that my wife and I aren’t capable of determining what is best for our family? Many (most?) of the people who received notices that their health insurance policy was being canceled were perfectly happy with their coverages, premiums, copays, deductibles, doctors and hospitals. How is providing maternity coverage to 55+ year-old-women better? How is the new doctors we have to see now that we have a different insurance plan (which our trusted ex-doctors don’t participate in) better? How are our nearly doubled healthcare care costs for unneeded additional coverages (e.g., we don’t need substance abuse coverage) better? Anyway, I would have thought the MTN folks would address the business case for Obamacare…does the benefit to the average American justify its cost. Instead, their view seems to be the cost doesn’t matter so long as the liberal social reengineering schedule Obama and MTN support moves forward. Ends justify the means, right? Which future MTN stories will also be colored by MTN’s underlying social agenda? At least WRT to this story, perhaps instead of MoneyTalksNews, ObamaTalksnews is more appropriate.

    I wonder when we’ll see the next Obamacare cheerleader style article from Karen Datko? I doubt there’ll be a follow up article when the self-serving number (10,000 people) released by the Democratic staff of the HCEC turns out to be a politically expediant lie put out in order for the useful idiots of the MSM (and MTN) to promulgate as truth.

  • Malcom Treadway

    …and just another unforeseen “glitch” in the “ACA” lovingly referred to as Obamacare ~

  • Malcom Treadway

    …and the roll out continues to roll over formerly free citizens. Now subjects of a dictatorially decreed law. Thank you, John Roberts.

  • Sue Friedmn

    I realize not everyone has thoroughly investigated their options with the ACA Plans. I found sign-up to be very easy. I also discovered that that I had two different plans to consider – BCBS or Humana.. One of the two had excellent benefits, as compared to the plan I had had, when employed, last year. More benes;
    IN fact, The final plan changed my plan to provide more coverage at a lower price. (my co-pay limits were lowered, too).

    As a a sidebar – my previous job ended after many years – the business was purchased and closed for a 7+ month renovation under new owners. My only affordable option was catastrophic insurance for the remainder of the year. Cobra was much higher than I could afford.

    In additional, my stafe did not allow for those who are unemployed, in 2013. They did not expand medicaid coverage, either.
    The ACA, so far has exceeded my expectations.

  • Malcom Treadway


  • Dan M

    We STILL do not know how many people the ACA has helped.
    Obama says that X million have signed up for medicaid and X million have signed up for Obamacare.


    Of the X million who have signed up for medicaid, how many of those people would have signed up anyways? NO ONE KNOWS!!!


    Of the X million who have signe up for Obamacare, how many of those people already had insurance before? NO ONE KNOWS!!!

    If you listen to our liar-in-chief, you would think that X million is the answer. But again NO ONE KNOWS!!! or at least NO ONE IN THE OBAMA ADMIN IS TELLING US but that is probably because the real numbers would be embarassing.

Check Out Our Hottest Deals!

We're always adding new deals and coupons that'll save you big bucks. See the deals to the right and hundreds more in our Deals section.

Click here to explore 2,033 more deals!