Obamacare in Missouri rate increase

[zico20]

The St. Louis Post Dispatch released the rate increases for Missouri. Cigna will have an average rate increase of 42 percent while Anthem will have a 36 percent average increase. The state of Missouri does NOT have the authority to deny increases.

[JustRalph]

It's working!!

[chrisl]

This has to be fake news. Or only for racist people.

[boxcar]

It's working!!

Exactly -- just like the commie-socialists planned it. And their "fix" will be single payer, which is what Obama always wanted in the first place.

[DSB]

Exactly -- just like the commie-socialists planned it. And their "fix" will be single payer, which is what Obama always wanted in the first place.
Yup. Nothing like giving the government control of 1/6 of the economy (soon to be 1/4 once the feds run it).

"Aww geez. We tried to fix Obamacare, but we just couldn't. Now we have no alternative but to turn over the health care of 350 million Americans to the bureaucrats in Washington."

Unfortunately, it isn't only the Democrums who want this. So do all of the career Republibums.

We the people will be the losers once again.

[Tom]

Ralph is right - this is EXACTLY what Obama planned.
Price everyone out of coverage.

Your DNC in action.
Oh, and the POS McCain, too.

[Clocker]

Ralph is right - this is EXACTLY what Obama planned.
Price everyone out of coverage.



Actually, Obama really believed that it would work. He believed it because he wanted to believe it, because Pelosi and Reid believed it, and because he was being fed a big line of BS from his major advisors like Zeke (Dr. Death) Emanuel and Jonathan Gruber.

Gruber, an MIT economist, is often referred to as the O-Care architect. He admitted after the bill became law that the program was based on the "stupidity of the American voter" (his words), and that if they didn't believe the lies, it wouldn't work. He didn't tell Obama this, and Obama was one of the stupid Americans who believed the lies. Obama really believed that if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. Zeke Emanuel stated long afterwards that in reality, the rest of that statement was "...if you can afford your doctor."

While Obama believed it would work, he and the Dems had a back-up plan in case of what is actually happening today. That plan was a public option with the feds actually running a health insurance program and selling health insurance in the market. They wanted this in the original bill, but could not get Congressional support at the time. If the Dems were still in charge, we would have seen a major push for a public option some years ago.

The long term plan was to go to single payer if the public option didn't work, or after enough people were on the public option.

[Clocker]

One of the reasons that O-Care has not crashed yet is that Obama was illegally subsidizing insurance company losses. The bill as passed authorized the subsidies, but the subsidies were never funded by Congress. Obama was paying the subsidies out of other funds in the budget. This was not authorized by the law.

Trump has continued to pay the "cost-sharing reduction payments" thus far, but could cut them off at any time with an executive order. The CBO has estimated that stopping the payments would increase O-Care premiums by another 20%.

[lamboguy]

i didn't need Obama to get screwed by heathcare, Romney got me about 10 years ahead of him.

[boxcar]

Actually, Obama really believed that it would work. He believed it because he wanted to believe it, because Pelosi and Reid believed it, and because he was being fed a big line of BS from his major advisors like Zeke (Dr. Death) Emanuel and Jonathan Gruber.

Gruber, an MIT economist, is often referred to as the O-Care architect. He admitted after the bill became law that the program was based on the "stupidity of the American voter" (his words), and that if they didn't believe the lies, it wouldn't work. He didn't tell Obama this, and Obama was one of the stupid Americans who believed the lies. Obama really believed that if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. Zeke Emanuel stated long afterwards that in reality, the rest of that statement was "...if you can afford your doctor."

While Obama believed it would work, he and the Dems had a back-up plan in case of what is actually happening today. That plan was a public option with the feds actually running a health insurance program and selling health insurance in the market. They wanted this in the original bill, but could not get Congressional support at the time. If the Dems were still in charge, we would have seen a major push for a public option some years ago.

The long term plan was to go to single payer if the public option didn't work, or after enough people were on the public option.

The only thing Obama "really believed...would work" with ObamaCare is its carefully planned obsolescence. :coffee:

[mostpost]

One of the reasons that O-Care has not crashed yet is that Obama was illegally subsidizing insurance company losses. The bill as passed authorized the subsidies, but the subsidies were never funded by Congress. Obama was paying the subsidies out of other funds in the budget. This was not authorized by the law.

Trump has continued to pay the "cost-sharing reduction payments" thus far, but could cut them off at any time with an executive order. The CBO has estimated that stopping the payments would increase O-Care premiums by another 20%.

If those subsidies were authorized by the bill-which became the law-what right does the Republican Congress have to cut off funding? Just another case of the whiny Republicans ignoring the will of the majority.

Since Congress illegally cut off the funds, Obama had no recourse but to find the money elsewhere.

Of course Trump might cut the payments off at any time with an executive order. That does not mean he has the legal right to do so.

The main problem with the ACA was that the penalties for not obtaining coverage were far too lenient. They should have started at twice the cost of premiums of a year and increased each year a person did not have coverage.

The supporters of the ACA vastly underestimated the willful ignorance of the "You can't tell me what to do" crowd.

[Clocker]

If those subsidies were authorized by the bill-which became the law-what right does the Republican Congress have to cut off funding? Just another case of the whiny Republicans ignoring the will of the majority.

Since Congress illegally cut off the funds, Obama had no recourse but to find the money elsewhere.



The Republican Congress did not cut off funding. The Democratic Congress never appropriated the funds.

Please point out where the Republicans acted illegally. Even if a Republican Congress did that, it would not be illegal. They have the power of the purse.

The subsidies require a two step process. First, Congress has to authorize the administration to spend the money. Second, the Congress has to appropriate the money to fund that spending. A obscure little technicality in a quaint little document called the Constitution. Perhaps you have heard of it?

From that highly biased right wing rag, the Washington Post:

The important complication is that even though the payments are written into the law, money to pay them was never appropriated by Congress. Under the Constitution, Congress must appropriate money in order for the executive branch to spend it. Obama from Day One was spending funds over which he had no discretionary authority. And he knew it. Trump is doing the same. And he knows it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/02/obama-trump-and-the-perils-of-illegal-obamacare-subsidies/?utm_term=.c351ccd2ff8b (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/02/obama-trump-and-the-perils-of-illegal-obamacare-subsidies/?utm_term=.c351ccd2ff8b)

[chadk66]

The Republican Congress did not cut off funding. The Democratic Congress never appropriated the funds.

Please point out where the Republicans acted illegally. Even if a Republican Congress did that, it would not be illegal. They have the power of the purse.

The subsidies require a two step process. First, Congress has to authorize the administration to spend the money. Second, the Congress has to appropriate the money to fund that spending. A obscure little technicality in a quaint little document called the Constitution. Perhaps you have heard of it?

From that highly biased right wing rag, the Washington Post:

Obama from Day One was spending funds over which he had no discretionary authority. And he knew it. Trump is doing the same. And he knows it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/02/obama-trump-and-the-perils-of-illegal-obamacare-subsidies/?utm_term=.c351ccd2ff8b (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/02/obama-trump-and-the-perils-of-illegal-obamacare-subsidies/?utm_term=.c351ccd2ff8b)eye for an eye I guess. so what if one is a black eye

[zico20]

If those subsidies were authorized by the bill-which became the law-what right does the Republican Congress have to cut off funding? Just another case of the whiny Republicans ignoring the will of the majority.

Since Congress illegally cut off the funds, Obama had no recourse but to find the money elsewhere.

Of course Trump might cut the payments off at any time with an executive order. That does not mean he has the legal right to do so.

The main problem with the ACA was that the penalties for not obtaining coverage were far too lenient. They should have started at twice the cost of premiums of a year and increased each year a person did not have coverage.

The supporters of the ACA vastly underestimated the willful ignorance of the "You can't tell me what to do" crowd.

That is absolutely brilliant. People who can't afford health insurance are forced to buy it and then make sacrifices elsewhere, like going without medicine, skipping meals or eating cheap junk food, going without running water or electricity because they do not have enough money to pay all their bills.

You liberals love to say the government needs to stay out of my bedroom (abortion) but you are more than happy to get in their living room and make their financial decisions on how to spend their hard earned money.:ThmbDown:

[betovernetcapper]

I have a couple of suggestions to cure this problem.

The drug companies have a patent for 20 years, which would be OK if the drugs were their soul creation. A lot of the R & D comes from the government's research on various projects. The drug companies simple rearrange the data. This would be fine if the drug companies offered fair prices, but while they own the patent they commit fiscal rape. I suggest if they continue to do so, reduce the patent to a year, and let any drug company that wants to come out with a generic.

The AMA limits the number of medical students each year thereby guaranteeing only a certain number of doctors & hence they can charge what they want. Screw that. Tell the medical schools that if they want to keep their license they have to accept three times the number of students or they will be shut down. In a few years, we will have more then enough doctors, thus lower prices.

Re the various expensive machines, there a few thing that could be done. At one point you could get a really great tax right off for donating money for medical equipment. Why not revisit that? If there is a need and shortage of MRI or whatever machines, then maybe the government could buy 100 or so at a discounted rate and distribute them to states as needed. Our government buys billions of dollars for planes, guns computers & God knows what else, They are in an excellent position to make bulk purchases at greatly reduced prices. If a company refuses to negotiate, I'm sure the government could do a tax adult or do various other things they would make the companies eager to make a deal.

[Inner Dirt]

Why should a young person who is healthy and doesn't have a family nor intend to start one be forced to buy health insurance? What is wrong with them paying cash out of their own pocket (I did that sometimes when young and had jobs that did not provide health insurance) when they need a doctor? When I was under 40 I had many 5 year gaps or more between doctor visits. A couple of those were covered by other's insurance, an employer's for a work place accident (another employee's fault), and a car crash caused by another driver. I didn't use a doctor for sniffles, scrapes and bruises when I had 100% coverage. The bronze plan or whatever they call it that a poor person can get for free hardly pays for anything, how anyone considers having that "insured" is beyond me.

[jms62]

Why should a young person who is healthy and doesn't have a family nor intend to start one be forced to buy health insurance? What is wrong with them paying cash out of their own pocket (I did that sometimes when young and had jobs that did not provide health insurance) when they need a doctor? When I was under 40 I had many 5 year gaps or more between doctor visits. A couple of those were covered by other's insurance, an employer's for a work place accident (another employee's fault), and a car crash caused by another driver. I didn't use a doctor for sniffles, scrapes and bruises when I had 100% coverage. The bronze plan or whatever they call it that a poor person can get for free hardly pays for anything, how anyone considers having that "insured" is beyond me.

How about those uninsured that actually do get sick that the hospitals are forced to treat causing hospitals to raise rates to cover the cost which in turn causes insurance companies to raise rates that we who aren't rolling the dice wind up paying?

[MONEY]

How about those uninsured that actually do get sick that the hospitals are forced to treat causing hospitals to raise rates to cover the cost which in turn causes insurance companies to raise rates that we who aren't rolling the dice wind up paying?
Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under Obamacare
May, 2015
https://usat.ly/2w3yAgF

Medicaid Expansion Causes Surge In ER Visits
Oct. 2016
http://bit.ly/2x7BtC1 You need to turn your adblocker off to read this one.

My niece has an ACA plan and she was told to use the ER because if the doctors bill is under $500 in
any month that she will have to pay it. She was also told that if any one medical bill during a month
goes over $500. that all of her medical bills will be covered by the government for that month.

[Clocker]

Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under Obamacare .

Millions of people reported as newly insured under O-Care were actually covered by the expansion of Medicaid. Since fewer and fewer doctors are accepting Medicaid patients, those people can't find a doctor and are going to ERs for care.

[chadk66]

I have a couple of suggestions to cure this problem.

The drug companies have a patent for 20 years, which would be OK if the drugs were their soul creation. A lot of the R & D comes from the government's research on various projects. The drug companies simple rearrange the data. This would be fine if the drug companies offered fair prices, but while they own the patent they commit fiscal rape. I suggest if they continue to do so, reduce the patent to a year, and let any drug company that wants to come out with a generic.

The AMA limits the number of medical students each year thereby guaranteeing only a certain number of doctors & hence they can charge what they want. Screw that. Tell the medical schools that if they want to keep their license they have to accept three times the number of students or they will be shut down. In a few years, we will have more then enough doctors, thus lower prices.

Re the various expensive machines, there a few thing that could be done. At one point you could get a really great tax right off for donating money for medical equipment. Why not revisit that? If there is a need and shortage of MRI or whatever machines, then maybe the government could buy 100 or so at a discounted rate and distribute them to states as needed. Our government buys billions of dollars for planes, guns computers & God knows what else, They are in an excellent position to make bulk purchases at greatly reduced prices. If a company refuses to negotiate, I'm sure the government could do a tax adult or do various other things they would make the companies eager to make a deal.I've never heard that the AMA controls med student numbers. where did you get that at?

[mostpost]

The St. Louis Post Dispatch released the rate increases for Missouri. Cigna will have an average rate increase of 42 percent while Anthem will have a 36 percent average increase. The state of Missouri does NOT have the authority to deny increases.
If you think this means any consumer will pay 42% more, you would be wrong.
http://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/an-early-look-at-2018-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-on-aca-exchanges/

Table one looks at 21 metropolitan areas. Column five shows the % increase in premiums before tax credits from 2017 to 2018. This varies minus five percent in Providence Rhode Island to 49% in Wilmington, De.

But column eight is the important column. It show the percent change in what people actually pay after ACA tax credits are applied. Column eight shows that in every one of those 24 Metropolitan areas, insureds will pay 3% less in 2018 than in 2017.

While you are there, take a look at table two. It shows that. since 2014, out of pocket premium costs have dropped in 18 of those 21 areas.

[mostpost]

Why should a young person who is healthy and doesn't have a family nor intend to start one be forced to buy health insurance? What is wrong with them paying cash out of their own pocket (I did that sometimes when young and had jobs that did not provide health insurance) when they need a doctor? When I was under 40 I had many 5 year gaps or more between doctor visits. A couple of those were covered by other's insurance, an employer's for a work place accident (another employee's fault), and a car crash caused by another driver. I didn't use a doctor for sniffles, scrapes and bruises when I had 100% coverage. The bronze plan or whatever they call it that a poor person can get for free hardly pays for anything, how anyone considers having that "insured" is beyond me.
From the time I left the Army at age 26 to the time I was about fifty, my only visits to a doctor were for a couple of work related physicals. That does not mean I was so arrogant or so ignorant as to think I did not need insurance. I considered the money I paid for premiums in those days as payment for services I might lead years later. I figured that doing this meant that my premiums in the future would be less than they would be if I started paying when I reached my fifties.

The facts are:
Many people get sick in their 20's, 30's, and 40's.
Many people get injured during those years.
Even a single doctor's visit will cost $300 dollars or more out of pocket in you don't have insurance. Add to that the cost of labs and other tests.
An operation can cost one hundred thousand dollars and up-way up.
Everyone is not as rich as you,
or everyone is not a big a fool.

[Mulerider]

If you think this means any consumer will pay 42% more, you would be wrong.

Your charts appear to reflect net pricing only for someone earning $30k per year and who receives federal subsidies. Are you suggesting that people outside that designation will be similarly protected?

[Clocker]

Your charts appear to reflect net pricing only for someone earning $30k per year and who receives federal subsidies. Are you suggesting that people outside that designation will be similarly protected?

There's always some wise guy that reads the fine print and spoils the narrative. :p

[mostpost]

Your charts appear to reflect net pricing only for someone earning $30k per year and who receives federal subsidies. Are you suggesting that people outside that designation will be similarly protected?
The idea behind the premium subsidies or tax credits is that no pay more than a certain percentage of their income on premium costs. That means that, yes, if you are on the exchanges, your out of pocket costs will change minimally-possibly decrease.

Of course if you are not on the exchanges, you do not get subsidies. But premiums for those people did not increase by 42% Or even 26%. Or even 10%.

[Mulerider]

Of course if you are not on the exchanges, you do not get subsidies. But premiums for those people did not increase by 42% Or even 26%. Or even 10%.

You're absolutely right. I'm not on an exchange, and I don't get subsidies. And my premium did not increase by 42%, nor 26%, nor even 10%.

It went up well over 70% on Jan. 1 of this year, from around $980 per month to $1,740 for my spouse and me. I believe I posted that bit of joyful news here at the time.

And you're saying 42% is not possible? I'll be more than happy to post the actual BCBS rate increase letter, if you wish. I kept it as a cherished memento, one which I can reference the next time someone promises to lower my premiums $2,500 per year.

[mostpost]

You're absolutely right. I'm not on an exchange, and I don't get subsidies. And my premium did not increase by 42%, nor 26%, nor even 10%.

It went up well over 70% on Jan. 1 of this year, from around $980 per month to $1,740 for my spouse and me. I believe I posted that bit of joyful news here at the time.

And you're saying 42% is not possible? I'll be more than happy to post the actual BCBS rate increase letter, if you wish. I kept it as a cherished memento, one which I can reference the next time someone promises to lower my premiums $2,500 per year.
Yeah, why don't you post that letter, redacting any personal identifying information. While you are at it explain to us why you accepted the increase rather than seeking coverage from a different carrier.

I would ask you to tell us what changes in your or your wife's personal situation caused the increase. In other words was the increase due to improved coverage or changing from a non compliant to a compliant policy.

I would ask but I have little confidence in you answering truthfully.

[Mulerider]

Yeah, why don't you post that letter, redacting any personal identifying information. While you are at it explain to us why you accepted the increase rather than seeking coverage from a different carrier.

I would ask you to tell us what changes in your or your wife's personal situation caused the increase. In other words was the increase due to improved coverage or changing from a non compliant to a compliant policy.

I would ask but I have little confidence in you answering truthfully.

I will do so. I've never posted a photo, so I'll have to figure out how to do it, so bear with me. It's late, so I'll get it posted sometime tomorrow.

In the meantime, I can tell you that all individual BCBS policies like mine were discontinued in Texas, and replaced by ACA compliant policies. (So much for "if you like your policy, you can keep your policy.") In addition to the premium increase, my deductible doubled. Mine is a Bronze plan, by the way.

I accepted the premium increase because I had no choice if I wanted health coverage. Blue Cross is the only insurance company left in Texas that operates in all counties. Most health insurance companies have pulled out of the state altogether. At the time my policy was up for renewal, Blue Cross was the only health insurer still servicing my county (and still is, to the best of my knowledge).

It's interesting -- and telling -- that when confronted with the reality of the financial hardship ACA has wrought on some people, your first reaction is to question their truthfulness. Good job.

[Mulerider]

Yeah, why don't you post that letter, redacting any personal identifying information.

Sorry for the large image. It's late. I'll figure out how to do it the right way later.





https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6bcd279319&view=fimg&th=15812af6c8739409&attid=0.1&disp=emb&realattid=ii_15812aef0b9ce32b&attbid=ANGjdJ8VFyqkqzlmwhlMDZrP-SxaNXQGUv-sZhJCqPFgbGVl5oynMSlpYp2OHapL1A-PIXwQpPw64Yw_r_AcOuzC9uHSJXaXK9HbcMombtgOwVuC2zJnQ iEiB7AehNo&sz=w942-h708&ats=1504672012431&rm=15812af6c8739409&zw&atsh=1

[davew]

Why should a young person who is healthy and doesn't have a family nor intend to start one be forced to buy health insurance? What is wrong with them paying cash out of their own pocket (I did that sometimes when young and had jobs that did not provide health insurance) when they need a doctor?


The new Democrat Liberal Fascist party feels EVERYONE must pay for the few that use it most.

What is next? Mandatory 'driver's insurance' for everyone with a drivers license? Why should you pay less than someone with 4 DWI/DUI's and 6 moving violations in the last 2 years in their $300K sports car?

[boxcar]

I will do so. I've never posted a photo, so I'll have to figure out how to do it, so bear with me. It's late, so I'll get it posted sometime tomorrow.

In the meantime, I can tell you that all individual BCBS policies like mine were discontinued in Texas, and replaced by ACA compliant policies. (So much for "if you like your policy, you can keep your policy.") In addition to the premium increase, my deductible doubled. Mine is a Bronze plan, by the way.

I accepted the premium increase because I had no choice if I wanted health coverage. Blue Cross is the only insurance company left in Texas that operates in all counties. Most health insurance companies have pulled out of the state altogether. At the time my policy was up for renewal, Blue Cross was the only health insurer still servicing my county (and still is, to the best of my knowledge).

It's interesting -- and telling -- that when confronted with the reality of the financial hardship ACA has wrought on some people, your first reaction is to question their truthfulness. Good job. (emphasis mine)

Interesting how that works, isn't it? The left never questions the veracity of their beloved Democrats who wrote this piece of garbage and passed it into law.

[chadk66]

If you think this means any consumer will pay 42% more, you would be wrong.
http://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/an-early-look-at-2018-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-on-aca-exchanges/

Table one looks at 21 metropolitan areas. Column five shows the % increase in premiums before tax credits from 2017 to 2018. This varies minus five percent in Providence Rhode Island to 49% in Wilmington, De.

But column eight is the important column. It show the percent change in what people actually pay after ACA tax credits are applied. Column eight shows that in every one of those 24 Metropolitan areas, insureds will pay 3% less in 2018 than in 2017.

While you are there, take a look at table two. It shows that. since 2014, out of pocket premium costs have dropped in 18 of those 21 areas.but what did their co-pay, max out of pocket and most importantly their deductible do?

[chadk66]

The left tries to claim there is little to no premium increases but they fail to tell the whole story. Many, especially employee/employer groups take a much larger deductible just to maintain their current premium level. The lefties think they can sell that to people but obviously what happened in Nov. proves people aren't that dumb.

[Clocker]

Sorry for the large image. It's late. I'll figure out how to do it the right way later.

https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6bcd279319&view=fimg&th=15812af6c8739409&attid=0.1&disp=emb&realattid=ii_15812aef0b9ce32b&attbid=ANGjdJ8VFyqkqzlmwhlMDZrP-SxaNXQGUv-sZhJCqPFgbGVl5oynMSlpYp2OHapL1A-PIXwQpPw64Yw_r_AcOuzC9uHSJXaXK9HbcMombtgOwVuC2zJnQ iEiB7AehNo&sz=w942-h708&ats=1504672012431&rm=15812af6c8739409&zw&atsh=1

Don't bother. He isn't going to believe anything that conflicts with the the infallible dogma of the Church of the Holy Democrats.

[jms62]

The left tries to claim there is little to no premium increases but they fail to tell the whole story. Many, especially employee/employer groups take a much larger deductible just to maintain their current premium level. The lefties think they can sell that to people but obviously what happened in Nov. proves people aren't that dumb.

Insurance companies had no culpability here? Seems to me that they took advantage of a situation to gouge knowing that ACA was going to be blamed. Willing to bet same will happen on Trump Care if CBO is to be believed. And the funny part (according to CBO) is a lot of you guys are going to be the target of the price increases. Will you then blame Trumpcare or put the blame where it should be all along?

[Clocker]

Insurance companies had no culpability here? Seems to me that they took advantage of a situation to gouge knowing that ACA was going to be blamed.

Right. That's why so many have pulled out of the market, because they had guilty consciences about how much money they were making. :rolleyes:

[Mulerider]

Right. That's why so many have pulled out of the market, because they had guilty consciences about how much money they were making. :rolleyes:

Beat me to it. :)

[jms62]

Right. That's why so many have pulled out of the market, because they had guilty consciences about how much money they were making. :rolleyes:

I missed the memo where Health insurers became unprofitable . They left because they weren't making the obscene amounts of profit that they previously were of course. Still doesn't negate the reason that your premiums have gone up and will continue to go up post ACA. But continue wrapping yourself in your Trumpcare is the solution blankie...

[Mulerider]

I missed the memo where Health insurers became unprofitable . They left because they weren't making the obscene amounts of profit that they previously were of course.

So instead of accepting lower profits in states like Texas, they chose to earn zero profits by exiting the market entirely?

[Clocker]

I missed the memo where Health insurers became unprofitable . They left because they weren't making the obscene amounts of profit that they previously were of course. Still doesn't negate the reason that your premiums have gone up and will continue to go up post ACA. But continue wrapping yourself in your Trumpcare is the solution blankie...

Health insurers did not become unprofitable over all, they were losing money in the O-Care market.

You don't just pull out of a market because your profits aren't high enough, especially if it is bad PR and bad government relations. A regulated industry has to be losing a lot of money in order to risk the disapproval of regulators.

They left because they were losing money. Not even the Democrats denied this.

I don't know what Trumpcare is (I don't think he does either), but I'd bet it would be as big a boondoggle as O-Care. The government needs to let people make their own choices in the free market, and help those who are genuinely unable to afford it.

[Clocker]

I missed the memo where Health insurers became unprofitable .

You didn't miss the memo, you missed the boat.

UnitedHealth (UNH (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=UNH&source=story_quote_link)), which is weighing an exit from the Obamacare exchanges, reported it lost about $475 million on Obamacare-compliant plans in 2015 and expects to lose more than $500 million this year. http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/19/news/economy/unitedhealth-obamacare/index.html

...a story by Investors Business Daily points out many are losing money (http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamacare-is-killing-the-blues/) and are requesting massive premium increases this year to keep them in the game:For example, Health Care Services Corp. — which owns Blue Cross affiliates in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas — lost $1.5 billion on its ObamaCare-compliant plans last year.

As a result, it’s requesting a nearly 60% rate hike in Texas, and almost 50% in Oklahoma. HCSC pulled out of the New Mexico exchange last year after the state turned down its 50%-plus rate increase.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, meanwhile, lost about $300 million in ObamaCare’s first two years and is likely to lose another $100 million this year. It wants a 62% increase in premiums, on top of the 36% it got last year.
There are several more examples in the article including BCBS plans in Arizona, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Delaware and West Virginia.
https://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/29/blue-cross-blue-shield-losing-money-on-obamacare-exchanges-across-the-country/

[jms62]

You didn't miss the memo, you missed the boat.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/19/news/economy/unitedhealth-obamacare/index.html

https://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/29/blue-cross-blue-shield-losing-money-on-obamacare-exchanges-across-the-country/

Why did I miss the boat? Wasn't my point that Insurance companies are using Obamacare as a shield to gouge the consumer? How else would they do that? You think those numbers aren't highly inflated?

Can we assume that these dramatic increases will be backed out when Trumpcare becomes the law or will they go higher? CBO says they will be going higher. When they go higher will it be Trump care that you blame or will it then become the Insurance companies. CBO say's much Much higher for our Pace Advantage friends over 60.

I am not defending Obamacare but there are pieces of it that are beneficial to both of us god forbid we ever get sick. Without it we pay for 20-30 years get sick and then get booted. Sounds like a lose / lose for us.

[chadk66]

Insurance companies had no culpability here? Seems to me that they took advantage of a situation to gouge knowing that ACA was going to be blamed. Willing to bet same will happen on Trump Care if CBO is to be believed. And the funny part (according to CBO) is a lot of you guys are going to be the target of the price increases. Will you then blame Trumpcare or put the blame where it should be all along?no and here's why. every rate increase has to be approved by the state insurance commissioner. to do that they have to prove the rate increase is necessary. so if you want to hammer somebody hammer the state insurance commissioners.

[OntheRail]

no and here's why. every rate increase has to be approved by the state insurance commissioner. to do that they have to prove the rate increase is necessary. so if you want to hammer somebody hammer the state insurance commissioners.

I'm sure the commissioners got Hammered and Handled at some Junket paid for by Lobbyist of the Insurance industries. Or maybe a simple black bag job.

[Clocker]

I'm sure the commissioners got Hammered and Handled at some Junket paid for by Lobbyist of the Insurance industries. Or maybe a simple black bag job.

So the insurance companies are a bunch of lying greedy crooks and the insurance commissioners are a bunch of cheap political hacks on the take, but the companies are still pulling out of the these highly lucrative markets? :D

[OntheRail]

So the insurance companies are a bunch of lying greedy crooks and the insurance commissioners are a bunch of cheap political hacks on the take, but the companies are still pulling out of the these highly lucrative markets? :D

Sure why not... they could of tossed darts at a map for all we know... I got Texas, you got Florida. Divided and conquer... less Indians mean more for Chiefs. When the trough was open the pigs dived in. Even the Mob came to realize it was more profitable to divide the pie up then battle each other over it.

[reckless]

I just love all these 'free market' devotees in government, in business and even in some PA OT General discussions.

They all call for and spew the same silly phrase -- 'let the free market decide'. Yet they just love government subsidies, set asides, 'too big to fail' monopolies and the like. Many claim they can't succeed without those subsidies. Really? Then why are they in business, I ask?

Let's have a true blue free market then -- no unfair (unfair to consumers and corporate rivals) tax advantages for the companies with the best lobbyists; no subsidies to hospitals, drug companies, Catholic Churches and other religious organizations, and not one thin dime to insurance companies. And, no one gets a government check to buy health insurance as long as working tax-paying slobs can't get the same benefit and is doing without any insurance because of the onerous costs.

Finally, open the borders now!! That is, those borders that surround each of the 50 states and allow all insurance companies (and cable/internet operators too) to sell their products to each and every citizen regardless of home address.

This will separate the wheat from the chaff, I promise you. (It also won't happen. -- :) ).

[Clocker]

I just love all these 'free market' devotees in government, in business and even in some PA OT General discussions.

They all call for and spew the same silly phrase -- 'let the free market decide'. Yet they just love government subsidies, set asides, 'too big to fail' monopolies and the like. Many claim they can't succeed without those subsidies. Really? Then why are they in business, I ask?



You mean guys like Trump who boast of believing in free trade but want protective tariffs to keep competition out of the markets they want to support? Who want to pick winners and losers by giving government money and tax breaks to hand-picked companies like Carrier in Indiana?

Finally, open the borders now!! That is, those borders that surround each of the 50 states and allow all insurance companies (and cable/internet operators too) to sell their products to each and every citizen regardless of home address.The ability to sell health insurance across state lines is a state issue. At least 6 states that I know of allow market entry from companies in other states, and have for some years. Not one insurance company has tried to enter any of those markets.

The reason is not laws against competition, the reason is that excessive and oppressive regulation at the federal level has made it economically impossible for a company to enter a new health insurance market and be competitive against established companies that are already there.

[reckless]

You mean guys like Trump who boast of believing in free trade but want protective tariffs to keep competition out of the markets they want to support? Who want to pick winners and losers by giving government money and tax breaks to hand-picked companies like Carrier in Indiana?

The ability to sell health insurance across state lines is a state issue. At least 6 states that I know of allow market entry from companies in other states, and have for some years. Not one insurance company has tried to enter any of those markets.

The reason is not laws against competition, the reason is that excessive and oppressive regulation at the federal level has made it economically impossible for a company to enter a new health insurance market and be competitive against established companies that are already there.

Since you have all the answers, please tell us how you are going to survive the next 7 1-2 years with Trump as President?

Seems to me you're on the brink, already, as you refuse reality of this President and his accomplishments. Now, I don't give a rat's arse if you or anyone else on here like Trump or not. But this silliness is getting boring and you're showing us that you're becoming very unhinged ...

PS -- Trump said he wants free trade but that it also must be fair trade. What didn't you understand? I know Trump lives in your head and you can't get over this and that you need to continually defend your incorrect analysis of the entire Trump story, wrong as it is and has been since 2015.

Now even that's no big deal to us since we don't want or need your approval. Trump and the rest of us are moving forward... to a better country, a better economy, and a better way of life.

Any idiot knows Carrier still could have moved to Mexico and taken those jobs with them. But then they'd have to pay a tax to sell those same air conditioners in the USA. YOUR ignorant and corrupt GOP whores were the ones that protected these companies by allowing them free access to US markets -- while at the same time allowing them to ship these US jobs overseas. YOUR GOP -- self-proclaimed 'true' conservatives and 'free' marketers -- :lol::lol::lol: -- are the ones that picked the winners and losers. Trying to blame Trump with those kind of accusations is laughable.

And when all this was playing out, you said Trump is such a dope that he'll never get companies to stay here in America. You also said Trump will never get companies to relocate to the USA. Nice prediction. :lol::lol:

Remember, it's the sound minded people who know the score and the what's, what, and not the pseudo conservatives, the RINOs and the Trump bashers of the GOP idiot wing.

In just a matter of months you've all became irrelevant.

[Clocker]

Seems to me you're on the brink, already, as you refuse reality of this President and his accomplishments. Now, I don't give a rat's arse if you or anyone else on here like Trump or not. But this silliness is getting boring and you're showing us that you're becoming very unhinged ...


Another rant devoid of facts. I'm unhinged and on the brink, but you can't refute any factual criticism. So your only comeback is that any criticism of Trump can only be motivated by hatred for the man. Been hearing that for 8 years about criticism of Obama. :sleeping:

As to his many "accomplishments", name any major campaign promise on which he has made any noticeable progress, let alone accomplished.

[Clocker]

PS -- Trump said he wants free trade but that it also must be fair trade. What didn't you understand?

A fair trade is any trade that both parties voluntarily agree to. What don't you and Trump understand?

[betovernetcapper]

I've never heard that the AMA controls med student numbers. where did you get that at?

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-ama-limit-the-number-of-doctors-to-increase-current-doctors-salaries


This isn't where I first heard it but provides some verification.

[OntheRail]

As to his many "accomplishments", name any major campaign promise on which he has made any noticeable progress, let alone accomplished.

I'll Appoint Conservative Judges... has to both Federal Seats and the Supreme. More to Come.

I'll Reduce Burdensome Federal Regulation.... has done some more in works.

I'll Withdraw from Pairs Climate Accord.... Withdrew.

I'll get NATO to ponie up... may have.

I'll approve the Keystone Pipe Line... Approved

Biggest... I'll keep Clinton out of the White House. He Did. :headbanger:

Just a few... :popcorn:

[chadk66]

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-ama-limit-the-number-of-doctors-to-increase-current-doctors-salaries


This isn't where I first heard it but provides some verification.so in reality it's just a myth. I bounced this off my sister whom is an NP and my uncle an ENT specialist. They both just kind of laughed. And when you think about it, it makes no sense when you consider the thousands of foreign doctors working over here.

[reckless]

A fair trade is any trade that both parties voluntarily agree to. What don't you and Trump understand?

This might 'ease' your concerns about fair trade not meaning much unless 'both parties voluntarily agree.'

This is a very old article, written in January 2017 -- ha, ha. It's gotten better since then, but why should I mention that ... or rather, it's just another rant without facts. :lol::lol:

This sounds like that there are many major international companies that understand what 'fair' and 'free' trade really mean -- along with Donald Trump.

http://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines/finance-news/employment-boom-10-companies-have-promised-to-add-jobs-in-the-us-since-trump-was-elected/

... The following are 10 companies that have promised to add jobs in the United States since the election of Donald Trump …

#1 Kroger says that it intends to fill 10,000 permanent positions in the United States this year.

#2 IBM has announced that it will be hiring an additional 25,000 workers in the United States over the next four years.

#3 Foxconn is setting up a 7 billion dollar plant in the United States that would create between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs.

#4 Amazon.com has pledged to add 100,000 full-time jobs in the United States by mid-2018.

#5 Wal-Mart has announced that it plans to add approximately 10,000 retail jobs in the United States in 2017.

#6 Sprint has announced that 5,000 jobs will be brought back to the United States instead of going overseas.

#7 After meeting with Trump, the CEO of SoftBank stated his intention to create 50,000 new jobs in the United States.

#8 After a phone call from Trump, industrial manufacturing giant Carrier promised to keep hundreds of jobs in the United States instead of moving them out of the country.

#9 Hyundai has promised to spend 3.1 billion dollars supporting their current factories in Georgia and Alabama, and they have said that they are now considering adding an additional factory in the United States as well.

#10 GM has pledged to invest a billion dollars in U.S. factories and to add or keep 7,000 jobs in the United States.

[reckless]

Another rant devoid of facts. I'm unhinged and on the brink, but you can't refute any factual criticism. So your only comeback is that any criticism of Trump can only be motivated by hatred for the man. Been hearing that for 8 years about criticism of Obama. :sleeping:

You don't think it's a fact that beginning with Bill Clinton and the Newt/GOP majority, plus increases through W. Bush and Obama, that US companies have left the country in droves killing these manufacturing jobs for cheap labor overseas? That wasn't a problem? And you think that was all OK, using the indefensible argument that this free trade?

The facts are you haven't upped your game since the election in your criticisms of Trump. Same old incorrect Trump bashing talking points, with the appropriate juvenile emojis.

In spite of what Trump has accomplished, you were the one that regularly said that Trump is a dope and he won't get these companies to come aboard. You also said that Trump can't win the nomination and all he's really doing is laying the ground work for another reality show. :lol::lol:

Still, I'll concede that last point... Trump is dealing with real 'reality' and he's doing a great job dealing with the reality of the times and the cards he's been dealt.

I do love it that Trump is showing everyone how empty in thought and leadership all the RINOs in Congress have been, along with pseudo conservatives and smartypants who think they are the brightest lights in the room. I love it that they are all angry and annoyed by him to no end.

Get over it, and that's the reality.

[betovernetcapper]

so in reality it's just a myth. I bounced this off my sister whom is an NP and my uncle an ENT specialist. They both just kind of laughed. And when you think about it, it makes no sense when you consider the thousands of foreign doctors working over here.

Perhaps it is a myth. Now that you mention it we do seem to have an awful lot of foreign doctors. Curious.

[Clocker]

You don't think it's a fact that beginning with Bill Clinton and the Newt/GOP majority, plus increases through W. Bush and Obama, that US companies have left the country in droves killing these manufacturing jobs for cheap labor overseas? That wasn't a problem?

No, that wasn't the problem. No, I don't think that US companies have left in droves, killing manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing output in this country has grown steadily over that period. Jobs are down because of automation.

The U.S. has lost 5 million factory jobs since 2000. And trade has indeed claimed production jobs - in particular when China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. Nevertheless, there was no downturn in U.S. manufacturing output. As a matter of fact, U.S. production has been growing over the last decades. From 2006 to 2013, “manufacturing grew by 17.6%, or at roughly 2.2% per year,” according to a report from Ball State University. The study reports as well that trade accounted for 13% of the lost U.S. factory jobs, but 88% of the jobs were taken by robots and other factors at home.http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/china-automation-jobs/http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/china-automation-jobs/

And you think that was all OK, using the indefensible argument that this free trade? The facts about trade and jobs are not an "indefensible argument", they are reality. Posturing about "fair trade" ignores the reality of a global economy, like it or not.

And what is "fair trade" anyway, other than restrictions that obtain the market results that one person or faction prefers for selfish reasons. And why would anyone with the freedom to act engage in a voluntary trade that he did not consider to be fair to him? If both parties don't think it is fair, the trade does not take place.

P.S. China is beginning to suffer from the reality also, as automation kills jobs there, and as businesses invest in other Asian countries that are more open to free trade.

[mostpost]

I'll Appoint Conservative Judges... has to both Federal Seats and the Supreme. More to Come.
And now we have even more idiots on the courts who think that the Constitution should be interpreted in the same way as it was when we were an agrarian society and people traveled everywhere by horse drawn carriage.

I'll Reduce Burdensome Federal Regulation.... has done some more in works.
What he did was to instruct departments to reduce regulations by a certain percent. (I don't remember the exact number) Just a random percent. Bad for the environment. Bad for people's health. Bad for public safety.

I'll Withdraw from Pairs Climate Accord.... Withdrew.
Is that anything like the Paris Climate accord? In any case it was the action of a moron.

I'll get NATO to ponie up... may have.
Maybe so; maybe not. In any case he has not made any friends for us internationally and has probably cost us a few.

I'll approve the Keystone Pipe Line... Approved
Destroy the environment to make a few dollars. We will pay for that.

Biggest... I'll keep Clinton out of the White House. He Did. :headbanger:
Three million more people thought that was a bad thing last November. I number which has increased exponentially since.

Just a few... :popcorn:

Your popcorn's probably not that good either.

[Inner Dirt]

Biggest... I'll keep Clinton out of the White House. He Did. :headbanger:

Just a few:popcorn:...

That is the biggest one and to me will erase anything negative he has ever done or ever will do. I don't think I could take 4 years of seeing the hag 24-7 after 8 years of the Great Divider.

[mostpost]

I'll Appoint Conservative Judges... has to both Federal Seats and the Supreme. More to Come.
And now we have even more idiots on the courts who think that the Constitution should be interpreted in the same way as it was when we were an agrarian society and people traveled everywhere by horse drawn carriage.

I'll Reduce Burdensome Federal Regulation.... has done some more in works.
What he did was to instruct departments to reduce regulations by a certain percent. (I don't remember the exact number) Just a random percent. Bad for the environment. Bad for people's health. Bad for public safety.

I'll Withdraw from Pairs Climate Accord.... Withdrew.
Is that anything like the Paris Climate accord? In any case it was the action of a moron.

I'll get NATO to ponie up... may have.
Maybe so; maybe not. In any case he has not made any friends for us internationally and has probably cost us a few.

I'll approve the Keystone Pipe Line... Approved
Destroy the environment to make a few dollars. We will pay for that.

Biggest... I'll keep Clinton out of the White House. He Did. :headbanger:
Three million more people thought that was a bad thing last November. I number which has increased exponentially since.

Just a few... :popcorn:

Your popcorn's probably not that good either.

[PaceAdvantage]

So nice you posted twice.

[JustRalph]

The next time Trump pisses you off, go back to YouTube and watch the meltdowns at the different media outlets on election night.

This ones off the beaten path a little, but the Young Turks really melted down........these guys are uber leftist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raQHcgttBDc

[Clocker]

The next time Trump pisses you off, go back to YouTube and watch the meltdowns at the different media outlets on election night.


I can't speak for others, but Trump doesn't piss me off. He is much preferable to Hillary. But he is still fair game for criticism when he is wrong about some issues. And there are a number of issues where he is in over his head, and he doesn't listen to the people he hired to advise him on those matters.

And there are some here who take any criticism of Trump as unbridled personal hatred for the man. Just like the usual suspects who reacted the same way to any negative remarks about Obama.

[mostpost]

... The following are 10 companies that have promised to add jobs in the United States since the election of Donald Trump …

#1 Kroger says that it intends to fill 10,000 permanent positions in the United States this year.

#2 IBM has announced that it will be hiring an additional 25,000 workers in the United States over the next four years.

#3 Foxconn is setting up a 7 billion dollar plant in the United States that would create between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs.

#4 Amazon.com has pledged to add 100,000 full-time jobs in the United States by mid-2018.

#5 Wal-Mart has announced that it plans to add approximately 10,000 retail jobs in the United States in 2017.

#6 Sprint has announced that 5,000 jobs will be brought back to the United States instead of going overseas.

#7 After meeting with Trump, the CEO of SoftBank stated his intention to create 50,000 new jobs in the United States.

#8 After a phone call from Trump, industrial manufacturing giant Carrier promised to keep hundreds of jobs in the United States instead of moving them out of the country.

#9 Hyundai has promised to spend 3.1 billion dollars supporting their current factories in Georgia and Alabama, and they have said that they are now considering adding an additional factory in the United States as well.

#10 GM has pledged to invest a billion dollars in U.S. factories and to add or keep 7,000 jobs in the United States.

1. Kroger added more jobs last year.

2.6,250 jobs per year by IBM is less than 2% of it's work force.

3. Foxconn is famous for big promises and small results.

4. Amazon has been expanded for years. It has nothing to do with Trump.

5. Wal Mart is adding 10,000 new low wage jobs and cutting 1,000 high wage jobs.

6 & 7. Both of these were decided before Trump took office. Of course he took credit and of course the companies went along with him to keep on his good side.

8. Yeah, that saved about 300 jobs. Way to go Donald.

9. Considering? Means nothing until they do it.

10.This has been in the planning for several years. Keeping is not the sames as adding.

That is a total of 237,500 which includes four years of jobs for IBM; an indeterminate number of years for Fozconn, a year and a half for Amazon, and who knows how many jobs for SOfbank.

If we put all 237,500 new jobs in one month it would be a pretty good month under Obama.

[Parkview_Pirate]

It's apparent the ACA is a colossal failure when the racketeers who wrote it (health care industry) want to bail out. :D

The ACA has suffered from the normal "unintended consequences of most Federal laws, as well as the pack of lies for selling it. It was never intended to improve health care, but rather designed to strengthen the cartels and monopolies that make up the health care racket. It was never intended to lower costs, but rather funnel more tax "revenue" to Uncle Sam, and cushion the coffers of the lobbyists, health conglomerates and insurance companies. It was never intended to insure everyone, and mostly the poor (a somewhat noble goal), but rather designed to increase the size and impact of government and health care bureaucracies - at your expense.

The next step may be single payer, but of course that won't help in terms of growing costs, and a shortage of government funding as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense and the remaining Fed agencies all compete for a shrinking pie of incoming taxes. The growth in health care jobs used to cushion the employment numbers will soon have to reverse, as their mostly parasitic role becomes too expensive.

To fix health care, Karl Denniger has created a detailed list of how to cut costs by 80% - in short repeal the ACA, publish prices of services, enforce anti-Trust laws, and reduce regulations and overhead.

http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=231949

Of course that comes with the assumption that Uncle Sugar really wants to fix health care - and that goal seems to be nowhere in sight.

[vegasone]

I believe fair trade means subject to market forces, such as "actual" cost of goods, labor, etc. What happens is that countries like China subsidize and protect industries they want to succeed(not based on their efficiency but on subsidies) , so other countries can't compete.
The US does that also somewhat but not to the extent that China has done to undercut US based industries. Also, stealing intellectual property has helped the Chinese to get to where they are. We do the research and they just steal it. So it isn't that we agreed to being screwed, just our politicians didn't care(paid off somehow?)

[Clocker]

I believe fair trade means subject to market forces, such as "actual" cost of goods, labor, etc.

"Market forces" are supply and demand, and have nothing to do with costs. What does it cost to build the latest Apple phone and how does that number compare to the market price that people are willing to pay for it? Is that price "fair"?

If you look up the meaning of "fair", you will find synonyms like "just" and "equitable". Who is better suited to determine whether or not a trade is equitable than the parties involved? Who would you trust as a 3rd party arbitrator to set the rules for what is equitable in the things that you do?

[vegasone]

The "parties" involved happen to be the US and China. So if it costs someone in China to produce a widget $1.10 and in the US it costs $1, but the Chinese subsidize the widget down to $.90 and the US company can't compete because we don't subsidize , and our so called leaders don't respond you would call that fair?
According to international law as far as I am aware, subsidizing industries in many situations is illegal. Just someone has to complain. The steel industry has complained for one.

Seems to me this policy of letting China get away with this for so long is coming back to bite us.

Fair means we compete on a level playing field, basically. I know nobody said life was fair, but this isn't about how cheap your IPhone is.

[Clocker]

The "parties" involved happen to be the US and China. So if it costs someone in China to produce a widget $1.10 and in the US it costs $1, but the Chinese subsidize the widget down to $.90 and the US company can't compete because we don't subsidize , and our so called leaders don't respond you would call that fair?


The Chinese think it is fair. American consumers who get cheaper widgets think it is fair.

A few American businesses don't think it is fair. Why should their concept of fair outweigh that of millions of American consumers? And who is qualified to make that determination and by what authority is that decision enforced? What is the standard for "fair"?

Fair means we compete on a level playing field, basically. I know nobody said life was fair, but this isn't about how cheap your IPhone is. A level playing field? We shouldn't trade with 3rd world countries until their standard of living comes up to ours? Games are played on a playing field. There is no such thing in the real world.

Why it is important that widgets be priced fairly, but the price of an IPhone doesn't matter? Why shouldn't poor people in this country be denied IPhone? That's not fair.

[reckless]

1. Kroger added more jobs last year.

2.6,250 jobs per year by IBM is less than 2% of it's work force.

3. Foxconn is famous for big promises and small results.

4. Amazon has been expanded for years. It has nothing to do with Trump.

5. Wal Mart is adding 10,000 new low wage jobs and cutting 1,000 high wage jobs.

6 & 7. Both of these were decided before Trump took office. Of course he took credit and of course the companies went along with him to keep on his good side.

8. Yeah, that saved about 300 jobs. Way to go Donald.

9. Considering? Means nothing until they do it.

10.This has been in the planning for several years. Keeping is not the sames as adding.

That is a total of 237,500 which includes four years of jobs for IBM; an indeterminate number of years for Fozconn, a year and a half for Amazon, and who knows how many jobs for Sofbank.

If we put all 237,500 new jobs in one month it would be a pretty good month under Obama.

From what you're suggesting, all this Trump/American success, regardless of partisan criticism, would have happened anyway under Hillary! ? Jeb! ? Kasich? Cruz, Bernie?

No way mostpost. Only Trump would have gotten this done, especially not Hillary, who would have defeated all the Republicans I mentioned above. Bernie would have lost to all these GOP fools.

[reckless]

The next time Trump pisses you off, go back to YouTube and watch the meltdowns at the different media outlets on election night.

This ones off the beaten path a little, but the Young Turks really melted down........these guys are uber leftist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raQHcgttBDc

Great stuff. I now wish I watched them on Election Night. I actually like Ben and Cenk. Steve Oh is a real nitwit as were all the gals.

Did anyone notice that at about the 12:40 mark, Cenk has this very pained look on his face.... and then says, "The New York Times now says Trump has a 95 per cent chance of winning..."

But, then, here comes Ben to the rescue and immediately says, "Well 538 still has it at 50-50." :lol::lol::lol: Cenk didn't buy it.

As a reminder, 538 is uber fraud Nate Silver's site. The 538 fanboys on here reminded us regularly on how Trump simply couldn't win, citing 538 as gospel. :lol:

[dartman51]

Great stuff. I now wish I watched them on Election Night. I actually like Ben and Cenk. Steve Oh is a real nitwit as were all the gals.

Did anyone notice that at about the 12:40 mark, Cenk has this very pained look on his face.... and then says, "The New York Times now says Trump has a 95 per cent chance of winning..."

But, then, here comes Ben to the rescue and immediately says, "Well 538 still has it at 50-50." :lol::lol::lol: Cenk didn't buy it.

As a reminder, 538 is uber fraud Nate Silver's site. The 538 fanboys on here reminded us regularly on how Trump simply couldn't win, citing 538 as gospel. :lol:


Punxsutawney Phil has a better record than Nate Silver, and I don't believe him either. :rolleyes:

[chadk66]

If you doctor in ND chances are about 90% your going to see a foreign Dr. Either from across the pond or from Canada. And those people didn't go to med school here either for the most part.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Great stuff. I now wish I watched them on Election Night. I actually like Ben and Cenk. Steve Oh is a real nitwit as were all the gals.

Did anyone notice that at about the 12:40 mark, Cenk has this very pained look on his face.... and then says, "The New York Times now says Trump has a 95 per cent chance of winning..."

But, then, here comes Ben to the rescue and immediately says, "Well 538 still has it at 50-50." :lol::lol::lol: Cenk didn't buy it.

As a reminder, 538 is uber fraud Nate Silver's site. The 538 fanboys on here reminded us regularly on how Trump simply couldn't win, citing 538 as gospel. :lol:

Cenk also went on to correctly blame the "****ing morons" of the democratic party for the loss.

That's an awesome video....:D