Nanker

Loss of employer "Cadillac" plan. $3,000 + extra tax because we "earn too much". Higher deductibles, and premiums than the previous plan that had better coverages. What's been your experience with the ACA?

Aw. Having trouble coping with losing are ya Bob? Well, Merry Christmas to you and your family.

They can't change anything for 2017 except perhaps the IRS penalties for either earning too much or not having coverage. As Tom said, they could perhaps expand Medicare (pre-existing conditions are not a disqualifier). And they could put the truly needy in Medicaid. Beyond that, they could try to eliminate the barriers to inter state insurance programs, but each state has its own insurance regulatory agency and that's probably a key stumbling block, as these are little fiefdoms of power. HC Insurance plans offered as a benefit of employment should not be discouraged as it's a perquisite to employment, and the ridiculous "Cadillac" tax should be abolished.

True dat. It was a peaceful revolution in the style of the right. The style of the left on the other hand is anything but peaceful.

We can look forward to two things during the Trump administration. 1. The infinite flow of comedic material for the entertainment industry especially the late night TV comics and the Cable standup comedian specials. 2. The resurgence of reporting on the real issues of the day, e.g., homelessness, drug addiction, poverty, unemployment, underemployment, etc. 2. Increased assassination attempts on the POTUS. 2. Revisionist historians books on B.O. and Hillary. I said only two, so I kept it at two.

Well, Ralph Nader cost AlGore his presidency. Best thing Ralph ever did since the Corvair recall.

Wonder if the Clintons get a divorce.

Makes me wonder what happened to Greggy. Self-imposed exile for awhile? He'll need to tweak his conspiracy theories a wee mite to account for Trump's trouncing of Hillary.

Oh the horror! Hallelujah! Please God, NO!

Well Chuck Schumer was forced into having an awkward conversation with his darling little daughter when the news about "oral sex" broke during the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski blow job sleaze scandal broke into the MSM. His response to her question, "What's 'oral sex' daddy?", he replied, "They talked about sex." He was extremely annoyed about having to have a conversation about the topic with her because "Republicans" brought the issue into the news.

Pay for the items separately, with cash. Go to the council meetings and demand cat, fish, bird, monkey, pig, turtle, snake, skunk, rabbit, guinea pig, gerbil, hamster (simmah down now 4mer) owners also be required to have their pets licensed. After all... IT'S ONLY FAIR!!!!!!!!!

That's what I was thinking. And the Senate probably would vote him in.

No media bias.

and the mob.

Rudy should go to DHS. Christie might be the COS - but I'd prefer him as WH Press Secretary - just for the comedic value alone. Bring back Condy. Carson should have a seat somewhere at the Cabinet table. Ted Cruz - SC appointee to replace Scalia? (he doesn't belong in a country club setting like the Senate) Did you have that same sense of trepidation about things when B.O. was sworn in with iron clad House and Senate majorities? Oh, I think they know exactly where the boundaries are. They'll probably draw a red line on them too. But you remember when B.O. was first elected. Republicans and Conservatives filled the streets for days, clogging intersections, shutting down Interstate highways, and shi tting on cop cars. Remember?

To be fair, he didn't "create" them, but he used them with great relish to leverage his agenda in spite of the opposition from the legislative branches of government. Lots of Presidents have used EOs to impart their will on an issue that was blocked in Congress. It's just that B.O.'s objectives were not nuanced, they were used to subvert the political process of LAW MAKING. Executive Orders are as close as we come in this country to autocratic rule, and their use is dangerous and can be a circumvention of the Constitution. That's one reason I won't have an issue with Trump abolishing most of B.O.'s as soon as he get in office. On another note, I'd be happy if he sets the Justice Department on Khizr Khan.

I think step one will be to tell the border agents and ICE and the Justice Department to DO YOUR FUC ING JOB! That should go a long way in reestablishing the rule of law, and I don't have a problem with that.

Ah! That makes sense. Use the "Keep Hillary alive through the election" medical protocols. Lots and lots of rest, IV drips of whatever drugs they need, and lots and lots of rest.

I'm busy this weekend, but will be available next week to help any and all of them pack and get the hell out of the country.

Seriously dude, you have a problem with that? And she gets the participation trophy for her efforts. On her Rump of course!

Schadenfreude!

You wanna do-over?

Sure, but life's not like that. I think repeal/replacing the ACA will receive front row treatment, as will the renegotiating of the trade agreements, and immigration REFORM. The ACA is the hottest issue. IMO. I went here https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions Hit the "Positions" drop down menu selection in your linky. GG's find is there. I think he'll try to advance most of them. Those that he can do unilaterally, e.g., repealing B.O.'s egregious executive orders he'll do on day one or two. Just like most Presidential political platforms, many of the planks fall by the wayside once government gets back down to brass tacks after the hysteria and feeding frenzy of the election cycle subsides. Hey, there's a new sheriff in town, and it ain't Hillary Clinton. Cheers!

Everything's on the negotiation table. Isn't it? Just like it is in any takeover of a major corporation or the installation of a new CEO. Why wouldn't it? It's not like things are going so swimmingly for the country. Remaining "on course" was soundly rejected yesterday. People want a new direction - upward, instead of the water-treading miasma that B.O. gave us. There may not be a "mandate" to run roughshod over the progressives, but that didn't stop them in '08 when the shoe was on the other foot, now did it? I expect him to put an emphasis on enforcing our current laws and to try to change some existing laws that are regressive WRT growing the economy. But that's just me.

I see it differently. I see it as a matter of principle. The law must be respected. Think of it as justice of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people she pizzed off by doing that crap are the ones that were mad enough at her to deny her the ultimate prize... 1,000 nights in the Lincoln bedroom with Huma.