Category Archives: Dept of Justice

Humana to quit Obamacare exchanges in 2018, providing fuel for Trump’s ‘repeal’ efforts

obamacare2

From Yahoo:  While Republicans continue to grapple with plans to repeal and replace Obamacare and stabilize health insurance rates, Humana (HUM) is the first major insurer to say it is dropping out of the individual market for 2018.

“Based on our initial analysis of data associated with the company’s health-care exchange membership following the 2017 open enrollment period, we continue to see further signs of an unbalanced risk pool,” said Humana CEO Bruce Broussard, on a conference call with analysts Tuesday. “Therefore, the company has decided that it cannot continue to offer this coverage for 2018.”

In the wake of the news, President Donald Trump tweeted that the insurer’s decision was another example of the failure of the Affordable Care Act, and he reiterated his plan to “repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.”

The health insurer made the announcement with its earnings update, following the mutual termination of its $34 billion merger agreement with Aetna (AET) earlier in the day. The two insurers agreed to part ways , after a federal court judge blocked the deal on antitrust grounds.

Humana now expects to earn $10.80 to $11.00 per share for 2017, excluding anticipated losses on its exchange business.

Humana cut back its Affordable Care Act exchange participation to 11 states last July, when the Department Of Justice sued to block its deal with Aetna. The insurer said that despite efforts to mitigate losses on its exchange plans in 2017 through narrower networks and selective market participation, it is seeing early signs of high pharmacy utilization among its new members.

Right now, the insurer estimated that it will lose a modest $45 million on ACA exchange plans, but it cautioned that this is an early estimate and “a number… that we’re going to have to evaluate.”

Other health insurers have threatened to pull out of the individual market if there is no clarity from Capitol Hill or Trump’s health officials on stabilizing the markets, but Humana is the first to say that it will pull out altogether.

Leading up to 2017 open enrollment, the exchange markets experienced tremendous turbulence last year, after most major insurers, including Humana, cut back on participation after suffering big losses on exchange plans.

Humana is a leading Medicare Advantage plan provider, and executives said that they don’t believe that they can achieve the same kind of health-care models on the Obamacare exchanges that they achieve with health plans for seniors.

The company does not hold out hope for more detail on Republican “repeal and replace” plans in the near term.

“We’re really feeling that this organization needs to stay focused on what we do well,” Broussard said, and the company can’t do that with Obamacare plans. “I think with that particular program, the way it is designed today and most likely the way it is designed in the future, will limit our ability… to get back into that marketplace.”

DCG

 

 

Advertisements

Illegal alien who committed felony identity theft deported: Liberals’ head explode

Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos

Convicted felon and illegal alien Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos

Identity theft is a serious problem. According to CNBC, identity theft and fraud cost consumers more than $16 billion. Some 15.4 million consumers were victims of identity theft or fraud last year, according to a new report from Javelin Strategy & Research. That’s up 16 percent from 2015, and the highest figure recorded since the firm began tracking fraud instances in 2004.

I know someone who had their identity stolen by an illegal alien. It has been a NIGHTMARE that this person has endured for YEARS.

Yet apparently to liberals, not everyone is equal under the law.

Several things to know about this now-deported illegal alien, Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos:

  • Guadalupe was first arrested in 2008 during a raid on her workplace when officers took her and several other employees into custody under the suspicion of identity theft — using false documents to gain employment, the New York Times wrote.
  • Guadalupe spent three months in a jail and then detention following her conviction of felony identity theft, the Los Angeles Times reported.
  • Guadalupe has been living in the U.S. illegally for 22 years. Plenty of time to obtain her U.S. citizenship, if she really desired to do so.
  • Guadalupe snuck across the border into Nogales, Arizona when she was 14.
  • Guadalupe’s husband is also an illegal alien.

From Fox6Now: Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, a mother of two who was taken into custody during her yearly check-in with immigration officials in Phoenix, has been deported to her native Mexico, advocates working with her family said Thursday.

Carlos Garcia, director of immigration rights group Puente Arizona, told reporters that Garcia de Rayos had been deported to Nogales, Mexico — the same border area where she illegally entered the United States as a teenager with her parents. Now 35, Garcia de Rayos has two children — both born in the United States.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Garcia de Rayos was detained “based on a removal order issued by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review which became final in May 2013.”

Garcia de Rayos said a prayer and attended Mass before her yearly immigration check-in Wednesday, according to advocates. They said she knew that she could be deported.

Immigration advocates said they believe the deportation reflects President Donald Trump’s administration’s immigration hardline. “ICE had done what President Trump wanted — which is deport and separate our families,” Garcia said.

ICE officials, however, said the case had been working its way through the system and that the time for Garcia de Rayos to be deported had come.

“Ms. Garcia’s immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of the immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the judges held she did not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S.,” ICE said in a statement.

“ICE will continue to focus on identifying and removing individuals with felony convictions who have final orders of removal issued by the nation’s immigration courts.”

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

Senate confirms Jeff Sessions as Attorney General!

52-47, despite Demonrat opposition.

And now . . .

Let loose the dogs of war

unleash-the-fbi

UNLEASH THE FBI!!!

Last year, Obama gave $27B to lawless ‘sanctuary’ cities

illegals demand free stuff

On January 25, 2017, his third full day on the job in the White House, President Trump fulfilled more of the promises he’d made — those concerning illegal “immigration” — by signing two executive orders:

  1. Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, which authorizes the construction of a wall along the porous U.S.-Mexico border.
  2. Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of United States, which authorizes the denial of federal funds to “sanctuary” states and cities that willfully violate Federal immigration law in an attempt to shield aliens, including criminals, from removal from the United States and, in so doing, “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” As White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it, “The American people are no longer going to have to be forced to subsidize this disregard for our laws.”

But few actually know how much federal grant money is at stake. Across America, there are more than 300 governmental jurisdictions claiming “sanctuary status,” which include 106 cities. The remainder are states, counties or other units of government.

Thanks to the organization American Transparency, we now have the figure for how much in federal grants (i.e., U.S. taxpayer dollars) the 160 sanctuary cities had received last year:

$26.74 BILLION

$15.983 billion in federal funds flowed into just twelve major American cities where 1 in 5 illegal entrants reside (FY2016).

In an article for Forbes on February 2, 2017, American Transparency’s Adam Andrzejewski writes:

Our organization, American Transparency (website: OpenTheBooks.com) was able to identify that number. We found nearly $27 billion ($26.74 billion to be exact) in federal funding (FY2016) for America’s 106 Sanctuary Cities. Our new report, “Federal Funding of America’s Sanctuary Cites” details federal grants and other forms of federal spending that flow to those cities.

Using our OpenTheBooks interactive map, search federal funding by city. Just click a pin and scroll down to review the municipal agencies and entities (FY2016). In fact, the map is quickly shareable to any website by copy/paste of the HTML code….

Under Trump’s order, mayors defending their sanctuary city status are essentially imposing a defiance tax on local residents. On average, this tax amounts to $500 per man, woman and child. Major cities like Washington, D.C., New York and Chicago have the most to lose, and nearly $27 billion is at stake across the country.

If the sanctuary cities defy President Trump’s executive order by continuing to shield ILLEGAL aliens, this is how much it’ll cost them:

  • On average, the cost of lost federal funding for a family of four residing in one of the 106 sanctuary cities is $1,810 – or $454 per person. A total population of 46.2 million residents live in the 106 sanctuary cities according to census data.
  • Washington, D.C., and Chicago, Illinois governments received the highest amount of federal funding per resident and, therefore, have the most to lose by maintaining their sanctuary status:
    • Washington, D.C. municipal government stands to lose $3,228 per person; $12,912 per family of four; or $2.09 billion total.
    • The City of Chicago, IL stands to lose $1,942 per person; $7,768 per family of four; or $5.3 billion total.
  • In cities with populations of 100,000 and above, the communities with the least per capita federal dollars ‘at risk’ are St. Paul, Minnesota ($47 per person, $14.2 million total); Downey, California ($36 per person, $4.2 million total) and Miami, Florida ($67 per person, $29.7 million total).

In FY2016, the federal monies received by sanctuary cities consisted of:

  • $543.97 million in Department of Justice grants to law enforcement – i.e. city police departments.
  • $4.23 billion in ‘direct payment’ to fund municipal services such as housing, education, community development, and schools.
  • $21.5 billion in ‘grant’ payments to fund local police and fire departments, schools, housing, and city services.

The threat of losing nearly $27 billion in federal funding seems to be having an effect on some cities. Miami has already reversed their sanctuary city policy.

~Eowyn

Federal judge who halted Trump’s temporary immigration ban is a proponent of Black Lives Matter

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order on Trump’s Executive Order on the temporary immigration ban. The judge, appointed by George W. Bush, said the state of Washington proved that the local economy and citizens have suffered “irreparable harm” and an injunction should be applied.

This same judge presided over a case of overseeing the reform of the Seattle Police Department due to allegations of excessive force and “biased policing.” According to Wikipedia, Judge Robart presided over a 2012 consent decree requiring the Seattle Police Department to address federal allegations of police bias. During the hearing, he declared “black lives matter.” See the video below.

The judge ultimately sided against the Seattle Police Department. According to the Seattle Times, Robart ended the hearing with deeply personal remarks, in which he noted a statistic that showed, nationally, 41 percent of the shootings by police were of blacks, when they represented 20 percent of the population.

“Black lives matter,” he said, drawing a startled, audible reaction in a courtroom listening to the words coming from a federal judge sitting on the bench. Read all about the Seattle Police Department case at the Seattle Times here.

Appears the good judge is nothing more than an activist judge. Just what the libtards needed to stick it to Trump.

DCG

Trump Stock Rally Leaving Big Media-Entertainment Behind

The most-biased, left-leaning companies are not thriving? Gee, I wonder why…

trump-and-us-media

From Hollywood Reporter: The Donald Trump election rally that’s sent the Dow Jones Industrial average hurtling toward an all-time high of 20,000 has left behind one key industry: big media conglomerates.

The president-elect has spent the election railing against television news giants like CNN and even right-leaning Fox News Channel. And Wall Street appears to be listening now that the real-estate mogul is heading to the White House. Of the 50 entertainment/media stocks tracked by The Hollywood Reporter, 36 of them lag the 9 percent gain made by the blue-chip index ahead of Friday’s potential record-breaking open.

While it’s tough to say there’s an exact correlation between Trump’s criticism of media and falling stock prices, experts say there are some legitimate concerns for the sector — as well as some lucrative opportunities — under a Trump presidency.

“Media and technology have underperformed because Trump wasn’t exactly favorable to leaders of those industries, so perhaps his policies will reflect that,” said Michael Kramer, founder and portfolio manager of Mott Capital Management. “He has been very critical of media. Obviously, the bad-mouthing hurts.”

trump-and-crooked-media

On the flipside, Steven Birenberg of Northlake Capital Management predicts that a lucrative business environment under Trump will help a variety of industries and it’s only a matter of time before media-entertainment catches up. The FCC, Justice Department and IRS could all adopt a more business-friendly, merger-friendly posture, which would keep stocks humming under Trump, he says.

Among Birenberg’s favorite stocks, all of which he owns shares of, are Comcast and Charter Communications, two of the major players in cable television.

“Cable is a big winner under Trump as net neutrality could go away. At least the odds of the FCC enforcing any price caps on broadband will go away,” says Birenberg, who did not support Trump. “I despise the man … but when it comes to managing my clients’ money, my fiduciary responsibility is to do what is best for them, so if Trump helps out media and entertainment stocks, I’ve got to take advantage.”

He also likes video game publishers Electronic Arts and Activision Blizzard due to the transition to digital downloads and in-game purchases, as well as Live Nation Entertainment, the giant concert promoter that also operates Ticketmaster. “The concert industry is booming globally,” he says.

Trump has been beating the drum against what he considers unfair trade deals with China, and among the biggest losers since the election is Alibaba. The massive Chinese new-media company that is co-producing films with Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Partners is off 7 percent since the election.

Another laggard since Nov. 8 is Facebook, down 3 percent. The social networking giant has been under fire from the left for promoting “fake news” and from the right for allegedly pushing negative stories about conservatives and positive ones about liberals.

Also lagging are some theater operators, most notably Regal Entertainment Group, down 7 percent, and Cinemark Holdings, off 3 percent. Movie theaters, though, are expected to get a boost from Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, which could open this weekend to as much as $350 million globally.

Kramer says the Trump rally has mostly benefited bank, energy and infrastructure stocks, and he suspects it won’t last. “It’s all about tax reform, deregulation and infrastructure and deficit spending under Trump, and those are all pro-growth policies,” he said. “The market is forward-thinking, but it doesn’t know what the actual policies will be, so the rally may fizzle.”

Beyond a Trump effect (perceived or real), there are plenty of issues plaguing individual companies. Disney, for example, will score big with Rogue One, but it lost 2 million ESPN subscribers in the fiscal year ending Oct. 1. As for Viacom, it remains to be seen what new CEO Bob Bakish can do to turn around the Paramount film studio as well as cable channel MTV. And 21st Century Fox was hit by a downgrade Monday by Telsey Advisory Group, which predicts the Rupert Murdoch-controlled company will have to fight European regulators over its planned $14.1 billion acquisition of the 61 percent of British satellite TV service Sky that it doesn’t already own.

Read the whole story here.

maga

DCG

Did Trump really say he won’t prosecute Hillary Clinton?

It’s all over the MSM, that is, the Fake Media, that President-elect Donald Trump signaled he would not prosecute Hillary Clinton for her many crimes and misdemeanors, including her use of an unsecured email server when she was Obama’s secretary of state which jeopardized national security because of countless classified emails that were top-secret.

But is that true?

CLEVELAND, OH - JULY 20: A Florida delegate holds up a sign that reads "Lock Her Up!" prior to the start of the third day of the Republican National Convention on July 20, 2016 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump received the number of votes needed to secure the party's nomination. An estimated 50,000 people are expected in Cleveland, including hundreds of protesters and members of the media. The four-day Republican National Convention kicked off on July 18. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

The source of Trump allegedly not seeking criminal prosecution against Hillary comes from a sit-down interview he had yesterday, Nov. 22, 2016, with a group from the New York Times — the openly pro-Hillary paper, 17% of which is owned by Mexican mogul Carlos Slim, which declared journalists should abandon objectivity in their coverage of Trump.

See “NYT openly advocates abandoning objectivity in reporting on Trump” and “NYT calls on Google to hide Hillary Clinton’s failing health”.

The group was comprised of NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., editors, reporters and op/ed columnists.

Here’s the relevant part of the interview:

MAGGIE HABERMAN, political reporter: I’ll start, thank you, Dean. Mr. President, I’d like to thank you for being here. This morning, [Trump’s spokeswoman] Kellyanne Conway talked about not prosecuting Hillary Clinton. We were hoping you could talk about exactly what that means — does that mean just the emails, or the emails and the foundation, and how you came to that decision.

TRUMP: Well, there was a report that somebody said that I’m not enthused about it. Look, I want to move forward, I don’t want to move back. And I don’t want to hurt the Clintons. I really don’t.

She went through a lot. And suffered greatly in many different ways. And I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious. They say it was the most vicious primary and the most vicious campaign…. I would imagine. I would imagine. I’m just telling you, Maggie, I’m not looking to hurt them. I think they’ve been through a lot. They’ve gone through a lot.

I’m really looking … I think we have to get the focus of the country into looking forward….

MATTHEW PURDY, deputy managing editor: So you’re definitively taking that off the table? The investigation?

TRUMP: No, but the question was asked.

PURDY: About the emails and the foundation?

TRUMP: No, no, but it’s just not something that I feel very strongly about. I feel very strongly about health care. I feel very strongly about an immigration bill that I think even the people in this room can be happy. You know, you’ve been talking about immigration bills for 50 years and nothing’s ever happened.

I feel very strongly about an immigration bill that’s fair and just and a lot of other things. There are a lot of things I feel strongly about. I’m not looking to look back and go through this. This was a very painful period. This was a very painful election with all of the email things and all of the foundation things and all of the everything that they went through and the whole country went through. This was a very painful period of time….

CAROLYN RYAN, senior editor for politics: Do you think it would disappoint your supporters who seemed very animated by the idea of accountability in the Clintons? What would you say to them?

TRUMP: I don’t think they will be disappointed. I think I will explain it, that we have to, in many ways save our country.

Because our country’s really in bad, big trouble. We have a lot of trouble. A lot of problems. And one of the big problems, I talk about, divisiveness. I think that a lot of people will appreciate … I’m not doing it for that reason. I’m doing it because it’s time to go in a different direction….

ELISABETH BUMILLER, Washington bureau chief: I just wanted to follow up on the question you were asked about not pursuing any investigations into Hillary Clinton. Did you mean both the email investigation and the foundation investigation — you will not pursue either one of those?

TRUMP: Yeah, look, you know we’ll have people that do things but my inclination would be, for whatever power I have on the matter, is to say let’s go forward. This has been looked at for so long. Ad nauseam. Let’s go forward. And you know, you could also make the case that some good work was done in the foundation and they could have made mistakes, etc. etc. I think it’s time, I think it’s time for people to say let’s go and solve some of the problems that we have, which are massive problems and, you know, I do think that they’ve gone through a lot. I think losing is going through a lot. It was a tough, it was a very tough evening for her. I think losing is going through a lot. So, for whatever it’s worth, my, my attitude is strongly we have to go forward, we have so many different problems to solve, I don’t think we have to delve back in the past. I also think that would be a very divisive, well I think it would be very divisive, you know I’m talking about bringing together, and then they go into all sorts of stuff, I think it would be very, very divisive for the country.

Note that while Trump said he doesn’t want to “hurt” Hillary and prefers to “go forward” to tackle the many serious problems of this very divided country, he also said that he, as President, will have very little control over what happens. By that, Trump meant that it’s the Department of Justice that prosecutes, not POTUS.

But when pointedly asked whether he’s taking the criminal investigation of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation off the table, Trump said no:

MATTHEW PURDY, deputy managing editor: So you’re definitively taking that off the table? The investigation?

TRUMP: No, but the question was asked.

That point is reinforced by NYT in a tweet at 10:15AM yesterday, referring to its political reporter Maggie Haberman who was at the meeting with Trump:

nyt-tweet-on-trump-prosecuting-hillary

Some other things Trump said in his NYT interview:

  • On the brutal campaign: “It’s been 18 months of brutality in a true sense, but we won it. We won it pretty big. The final numbers are coming out . . . far beyond what anybody’s wildest expectation was . . . . I would do, during the last month, two or three [rallies] a day. That’s a lot. Because that’s not easy when you have big crowds. Those speeches, that’s not an easy way of life, doing three a day. Then I said the last two days, I want to do six and seven. And I’m not sure anybody has ever done that. But we did six and we did seven and the last one ended at 1 o’clock in the morning in Michigan.”
  • Electoral College: “the popular vote would have been a lot easier, but it’s a whole different campaign. I would have been in California, I would have been in Texas, Florida and New York, and we wouldn’t have gone anywhere else . . . . I think that’s the genius of the Electoral College. I was never a fan of the Electoral College until now . . . now I like it for two reasons. What it does do is it gets you out to see states that you’ll never see otherwise. It’s very interesting. Like Maine . . . . “
  • Military votes: Votes from members of the Armed Services are still coming in and 85% of them are for Trump.
  • On the Alt-right, whom NYT executive editor Dean Baquet characterized as white racists: “First of all, I don’t want to energize the group. I’m not looking to energize them. I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group . . . . What we do want to do is we want to bring the country together, because the country is very, very divided, and . . . I’m going to work very hard to bring the country together.”
  • Climate change: “But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind . . . . You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind . . . . It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.”
  • Steve Bannon: Trump was questioned whether he should have appointed Bannon to be chief White House strategist because Bannon “is a hero of the alt-right” and “described by some as racist and anti-Semitic”. Trump answered: “I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right, or any of the things that we can, you know, the terms we can use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him. First of all, I’m the one that makes the decision, not Steve Bannon or anybody else. And Kellyanne will tell you that . . . . Steve went to Harvard . . . he was a Naval officer . . . . I’ve known him for a long time. He’s a very, very smart guy. I think he was with Goldman Sachs on top of everything else . . . . In many respects I think his views are actually on the other side of what a lot of people might think . . . . Breitbart, first of all, is just a publication. And, you know, they cover stories like you cover stories. Now, they are certainly a much more conservative paper, to put it mildly, than The New York Times. But Breitbart really is a news organization that’s become quite successful, and it’s got readers and it does cover subjects that are on the right, but it covers subjects on the left also.”
  • Republican Party: “Paul Ryan right now loves me, Mitch McConnell loves me, it’s amazing how winning can change things . . . . Right now they’re in love with me. O.K.? Four weeks ago they weren’t in love with me.”
  • About Rust Belt jobs: In response to NYT columnist Thomas Friedman’s question if Trump is worried that manufacturing companies will keep their factories here, but the jobs will be replaced by robots, Trump answered, “They will, and we’ll make the robots too . . . . Right now we don’t make the robots. We don’t make anything. But we’re going to, I mean, look, robotics is becoming very big and we’re going to do that. We’re going to have more factories. We can’t lose 70,000 factories [since George W. Bush]. Just can’t do it. We’re going to start making things . . . we have companies leaving our country because the taxes are too high. But they’re leaving also because of the regulations. And I would say, of the two, and I would not have thought this, regulation cuts, substantial regulation cuts, are more important than, and more enthusiastically supported, than even the big tax cuts.”

~Eowyn