The pending doom known as Obamacare

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#1 Feb 19, 2013
Obamacare is the law. This is no longer a potential problem for businesses and employees, this is a real live time bomb waiting to explode.

You think it won't impact you and your job? Then keep burying your head in the sand. It sure as hell will.

The quality of your health care will go down. The costs will go up. And your employer will do everything in his power to become a company with fewer than 50 employees - thus creating another "jobs crisis".

Tick...tick...tick...KABOOM! Elections do have consequences.

----------

February 18, 2013 6:51 pm

US business hits out at ‘Obamacare’ costs

By Barney Jopson in New York and Alan Rappeport in Washington

US retailers and restaurants chains that employ millions of low-wage workers are considering cutting working hours or paying fines rather than enrolling employees in health insurance plans under Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law.

Employers are concerned that the law increases the cost of insuring employees on existing plans, partly by broadening the range of benefits. It also requires companies to insure some employees not previously covered.

David Dillon, chief executive of the Kroger supermarket chain, told the Financial Times that some companies might opt to pay a government-mandated penalty for not providing insurance because it was cheaper than the cost of coverage.

Nigel Travis, head of Dunkin’ Brands, said his doughnut chain was lobbying to change the definition of “full-time” employees eligible for coverage from those working at least 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week.

Some restaurants, including Wendy’s and Taco Bell franchises, have explored slashing worker hours so fewer employees qualify for health insurance, arguing that they cannot afford the additional healthcare costs. Other businesses are deliberately keeping headcounts below 50.

Mr Dillon said Kroger intended to continue covering all full-time employees but maintained that parts of the law were “simply not workable”.

“If you look through the economics of the penalty the companies pay versus the cost to provide coverage, the penalty’s too low, or the cost of coverage is too high, or the combination is wrong,” he said.

“If [policy makers] get those things too far out of balance, everybody will have to reconsider their position on that point, including us. But we’re going to wait and see how that all develops.”

The penalty for not providing coverage is $2,000 per worker. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan policy group, the average annual cost to employers of insurance is $4,664 for a single worker and $11,429 for a family.

Companies with more than 50 workers have to pay a penalty if they do not provide full-time employees with health insurance. The employees can instead buy private coverage subsidised by the government on new insurance exchanges.

Darden, a US restaurant chain, last year said it was considering slashing its workers’ weekly hours to below the 30-hour threshold but later retreated from the plan after a backlash.

The Obama administration maintains that the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, will improve access to insurance while reducing healthcare costs. A spokeswoman for the government’s health department said that non-partisan studies showed it would have a negligible effect on the labour market.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2bce37c-7644-11e2-...
Bushwhacked

Seattle, WA

#2 Feb 19, 2013
On another thread, you said those low wage workers deserve less ??? Now your NEW post proves nothing, but YOU like rhetoric, prick !!! LMAOROTFU~!

• ObamaCare's goal is to provide affordable health insurance for all US citizens and to reduce the growth in health care spending.

• ObamaCare does not replace private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.

• The Fact is ObamaCare gives 47 million women access to preventive health services and makes it illegal to charge women different rates than men. Get more ObamaCare Women's Health Services Facts

• ObamaCare gives seniors access to cheaper drugs, free preventive care, reforms Medicare Advantage, and closes the Medicare Part D 'donut hole. The AARP agrees, costs won't rise because of ObamaCare, if anything, the improvements to the system will decrease the average cost of health care for seniors.

• 1 in 2 Americans have a "pre-existing" condition they could be denied health insurance for. ObamaCare chips Away at pre-existing conditions until 2017 when there are no more preexisting conditions for anyone, including high-risk customers.

• 54 million Americans with private health insurance now have access to preventive services with no cost sharing due to the new minimum standards of ObamaCare.

• ObamaCare doesn't ration health care; it protects consumers from the health care rationing insurance companies have been doing for ages.

• ObamaCare reduces the growth in healthcare spending. The current $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare system costs almost $9k a year for every man, woman, and child.

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#3 Feb 19, 2013
FACT: Health care quality will go down.

FACT: Health care costs will continue to go up in double digit amounts each year.

FACT: The employee will suffer because Obamacare will squeeze the employer to the point where the employer will say it is not worth it any longer to provide health insurance.

FACT: The employer won't suffer. The employee will.

FACT: Low information voters re-elected Obama.

FACT: Elections have consequences.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#4 Feb 19, 2013
Slewpid people should cite their sources or STFU since uncredited posts are either plagiarized or made up and therefore, invalid. And as the SCOTUS said, it's a tax increase, managed and enforced by the IRS, not a fee. The idiots who voted for it did not even know what was in the damned thing. They votes were completely and blindly partisan. It must be repealed ASAP.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#5 Feb 19, 2013
Smart Liberal wrote:
----------
February 18, 2013 6:51 pm
US business hits out at ‘Obamacare’ costs
By Barney Jopson in New York and Alan Rappeport in Washington
US retailers and restaurants chains that employ millions of low-wage workers are considering cutting working hours or paying fines rather than enrolling employees in health insurance plans under Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law.
Employers are concerned that the law increases the cost of insuring employees on existing plans, partly by broadening the range of benefits. It also requires companies to insure some employees not previously covered.
David Dillon, chief executive of the Kroger supermarket chain, told the Financial Times that some companies might opt to pay a government-mandated penalty for not providing insurance because it was cheaper than the cost of coverage.
Nigel Travis, head of Dunkin’ Brands, said his doughnut chain was lobbying to change the definition of “full-time” employees eligible for coverage from those working at least 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week.
Some restaurants, including Wendy’s and Taco Bell franchises, have explored slashing worker hours so fewer employees qualify for health insurance, arguing that they cannot afford the additional healthcare costs. Other businesses are deliberately keeping headcounts below 50.
Mr Dillon said Kroger intended to continue covering all full-time employees but maintained that parts of the law were “simply not workable”.
“If you look through the economics of the penalty the companies pay versus the cost to provide coverage, the penalty’s too low, or the cost of coverage is too high, or the combination is wrong,” he said.
“If [policy makers] get those things too far out of balance, everybody will have to reconsider their position on that point, including us. But we’re going to wait and see how that all develops.”
The penalty for not providing coverage is $2,000 per worker. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan policy group, the average annual cost to employers of insurance is $4,664 for a single worker and $11,429 for a family.
Companies with more than 50 workers have to pay a penalty if they do not provide full-time employees with health insurance. The employees can instead buy private coverage subsidised by the government on new insurance exchanges.

The Obama administration maintains that the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, will improve access to insurance while reducing healthcare costs. A spokeswoman for the government’s health department said that non-partisan studies showed it would have a negligible effect on the labour market.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2bce37c-7644-11e2-...
Impact of ObamaCare on Business: Lessons from France

By John Goodman Filed under New Health Care Law on January 7, 2013 with 8 comments

Beginning this time next year…the Affordable Care Act will put new requirements on businesses with 50 or more full-time employees, whereas businesses with 49 or fewer employees will be exempt…[Similarly,] French companies employing 50 or more workers are, among other things, obligated “to establish a committee on health, safety and working conditions and train its members,” whereas companies with 49 employees are not…

The chart below, reproduced from their paper using data on employers in France, shows the number of employers of various sizes…


Luis Garicano, Claire Lelarge and John Van Reenen,“Firm Size Distortions and the Productivity Distribution: Evidence From France.”

The chart shows a couple of odd patterns at the 50-employee mark. First, there are sharply fewer employers (by more than a factor of two) with exactly 50 employees than with exactly 49 employees. Second, although the number of companies usually falls with the number of employees, there are actually more employers with 49 employees than with 45 employees.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#6 Feb 19, 2013
Impact of ObamaCare on Business: Lessons from France

By John Goodman Filed under New Health Care Law on January 7, 2013

Beginning this time next year…the Affordable Care Act will put new requirements on businesses with 50 or more full-time employees, whereas businesses with 49 or fewer employees will be exempt…[Similarly,] French companies employing 50 or more workers are, among other things, obligated “to establish a committee on health, safety and working conditions and train its members,” whereas companies with 49 employees are not…

The chart below, reproduced from their paper using data on employers in France, shows the number of employers of various sizes…


Luis Garicano, Claire Lelarge and John Van Reenen,“Firm Size Distortions and the Productivity Distribution: Evidence From France.”

The chart shows a couple of odd patterns at the 50-employee mark. First, there are sharply fewer employers (by more than a factor of two) with exactly 50 employees than with exactly 49 employees. Second, although the number of companies usually falls with the number of employees, there are actually more employers with 49 employees than with 45 employees.
Bushwhacked

Seattle, WA

#7 Feb 19, 2013
Just like your BFF, Little Miss Cantgetitup, reading comprehension is not a talent you possess, is it?

• ObamaCare's goal is to provide affordable health insurance for all US citizens and to reduce the growth in health care spending.

• ObamaCare does not replace private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.

• The Fact is ObamaCare gives 47 million women access to preventive health services and makes it illegal to charge women different rates than men. Get more ObamaCare Women's Health Services Facts

• ObamaCare gives seniors access to cheaper drugs, free preventive care, reforms Medicare Advantage, and closes the Medicare Part D 'donut hole. The AARP agrees, costs won't rise because of ObamaCare, if anything, the improvements to the system will decrease the average cost of health care for seniors.

• 1 in 2 Americans have a "pre-existing" condition they could be denied health insurance for. ObamaCare chips Away at pre-existing conditions until 2017 when there are no more preexisting conditions for anyone, including high-risk customers.

• 54 million Americans with private health insurance now have access to preventive services with no cost sharing due to the new minimum standards of ObamaCare.

• ObamaCare doesn't ration health care; it protects consumers from the health care rationing insurance companies have been doing for ages.

• ObamaCare reduces the growth in healthcare spending. The current $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare system costs almost $9k a year for every man, woman, and child.
Amused Slew

Saint Paul, MN

#8 Feb 19, 2013
barry soetoro and his destruction of American and our Christian values.

__________ March 1 is going to happen !!
Smart Liberal wrote:
Obamacare is the law. This is no longer a potential problem for businesses and employees, this is a real live time bomb waiting to explode.
You think it won't impact you and your job? Then keep burying your head in the sand. It sure as hell will.
The quality of your health care will go down. The costs will go up. And your employer will do everything in his power to become a company with fewer than 50 employees - thus creating another "jobs crisis".
Tick...tick...tick...KABOOM! Elections do have consequences.
----------
February 18, 2013 6:51 pm
US business hits out at ‘Obamacare’ costs
By Barney Jopson in New York and Alan Rappeport in Washington
US retailers and restaurants chains that employ millions of low-wage workers are considering cutting working hours or paying fines rather than enrolling employees in health insurance plans under Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law.
Employers are concerned that the law increases the cost of insuring employees on existing plans, partly by broadening the range of benefits. It also requires companies to insure some employees not previously covered.
David Dillon, chief executive of the Kroger supermarket chain, told the Financial Times that some companies might opt to pay a government-mandated penalty for not providing insurance because it was cheaper than the cost of coverage.
Nigel Travis, head of Dunkin’ Brands, said his doughnut chain was lobbying to change the definition of “full-time” employees eligible for coverage from those working at least 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week.
Some restaurants, including Wendy’s and Taco Bell franchises, have explored slashing worker hours so fewer employees qualify for health insurance, arguing that they cannot afford the additional healthcare costs. Other businesses are deliberately keeping headcounts below 50.
Mr Dillon said Kroger intended to continue covering all full-time employees but maintained that parts of the law were “simply not workable”.
“If you look through the economics of the penalty the companies pay versus the cost to provide coverage, the penalty’s too low, or the cost of coverage is too high, or the combination is wrong,” he said.
“If [policy makers] get those things too far out of balance, everybody will have to reconsider their position on that point, including us. But we’re going to wait and see how that all develops.”
The penalty for not providing coverage is $2,000 per worker. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan policy group, the average annual cost to employers of insurance is $4,664 for a single worker and $11,429 for a family.
Companies with more than 50 workers have to pay a penalty if they do not provide full-time employees with health insurance. The employees can instead buy private coverage subsidised by the government on new insurance exchanges.
Darden, a US restaurant chain, last year said it was considering slashing its workers’ weekly hours to below the 30-hour threshold but later retreated from the plan after a backlash.
The Obama administration maintains that the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, will improve access to insurance while reducing healthcare costs. A spokeswoman for the government’s health department said that non-partisan studies showed it would have a negligible effect on the labour market.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2bce37c-7644-11e2-...
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#9 Feb 19, 2013
Why 49 Is a Magic Number

By CASEY B. MULLIGAN

The aggregate amount of regulation is difficult to quantify, but we learn something about it from the number of businesses that choose to have exactly 49 employees.

Today’s Economist

I noted last week that government regulations are not as easily quantified as taxes and spending, because regulation has no budget and no obvious accounting method. Some laws are not enforced, while others have little impact because people would follow them even without the force of a law. The most useful regulatory budget would put a lot of weight on the laws that actually matter.

The economists Luis Garicano, Claire Lelarge and John Van Reenen are developing a method to quantify the aggregate importance of employer regulations. They note that small employers are naturally more common than medium-size employers, which are themselves more common than large employers.

Moreover, the frequency of employers of various sizes appears in many situations to follow a “power law” of statistics. If you tell these economists how many employers in a given region have, say, 22 employees, the authors can, with the power law, accurately predict the number of employers with 23 employees.

Their chart reproduced from their paper using data on employers in France, shows the number of employers of various sizes. For example, about 10,000 employers in their sample have four employees. Their paper confirms the statistical power law with one glaring deviation: the exceptional number of employers with exactly 49 employees and far fewer with 50 employees (another lesser deviation occurs on the margin between 9 and 10 employees).

The authors show how this pattern reflects deliberate efforts by employers to stay below the 50-employee threshold where several employment and accounting regulations take effect. For example, they note that French companies employing 50 or more workers are, among other things, obligated “to establish a committee on health, safety and working conditions and train its members,” whereas companies with 49 employees are not. France also has regulations kicking in at employment levels of 10, 11, 20 and 25.

The primary reason for size adjustments is regulations that impose costs on an employer significantly higher than the benefits they create for the employees. The larger the net costs, the more company size should deviate from the statistical power law, which is why Professors Garicano, Lelarge and Van Reenen can use their power-law analysis to quantify the private costs of the regulations that kick in at the 50-employee threshold.

This is not to say that the regulations imposed on 50-employee companies are necessarily excessive, because they can create public benefits that more than justify their net costs for an employer and his employees, just as taxes and government spending can. For example, an air-pollution regulation might kick in at 50 employees that creates a significant cost for the employer and little aggregate benefit for his employees but creates a significant benefit for the people of France.

The authors show how, so far, employer sizes in the United States deviate less from the statistical power law, which implies that French regulations kicking in at 50 are more costly (from the point of view of an employer and his employees) than the United States regulations kicking in at that threshold.

But the United States has added some major regulations with its Affordable Care Act and its Dodd-Frank regulations. Beginning this time next year, for example, the Affordable Care Act will put new requirements on businesses with 50 or more full-time employees, whereas businesses with 49 or fewer employees will be exempt. Businesses with fewer than 26 employees may already be eligible for Affordable Care Act tax credits for providing health insurance, whereas larger businesses are not.

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#10 Feb 19, 2013
I am telling you, it is not going to be the employer who ends up hurting as a result of the increased costs, and decreased quality of care.

This is something that will cause every private sector employee suffering in the wallet and with their health.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#11 Feb 19, 2013
Smart Liberal wrote:
I am telling you, it is not going to be the employer who ends up hurting as a result of the increased costs, and decreased quality of care.
This is something that will cause every private sector employee suffering in the wallet and with their health.
In the US, we pay 15.3% of our income in Social Security, Medcare, and Medicaid. In France, with lower healtcare costs reported, they take 20% off the top, to cover additional healthcare costs. Looks like it will hurt employees to me as well.

It will hurt a few employers initially that are over just over the 50 employee level, competing with employers at the 40 employee level, but that is easily rectified through layoffs. We are about to see a jump in the number of small businesses with 45-49 employees.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#12 Feb 19, 2013
CCAC Cuts Adjuncts' Hours To Avoid Obamacare Requirements

The Huffington Post | By Tyler Kingkade Posted: 11/20/2012 1:46 pm EST Updated: 11/29/2012 9:58 am EST

Community College Of Allegheny County will cut the hours for some instructors to avoid paying for their health insurance coverage under new Affordable Care Act rules.

CCAC President Alex Johnson announced in an email to employees last week that the school would cut course loads and hours for some 200 adjunct faculty members and 200 additional employees.

The Affordable Care Act -- nicknamed Obamacare -- classifies employees who work 30 hours or more per week as full-time, and CCAC would be required under the new law to provide employer-assisted health insurance to those employees.

Instead, temporary part-time employees, such as clerical, computer, seasonal and other positions, will be limited to working 25 hours per week, and adjunct instructors will only be able to teach 10 credits per semester. Permanent part-time employees, already eligible for health care coverage, will be unaffected. The Pittsburgh-based college estimates the move will save it from spending an additional $6 million.

"While it is of course the college’s preference to provide coverage to these positions, there simply are not funds available to do so," David Hoovler, executive assistant to the president of CCAC, told The Huffington Post. "Several years of cuts or largely flat funding from our government supporters have led to significant cost reductions by CCAC, leaving little room to trim the college’s budget further."
redeemer

Saint Paul, MN

#13 Feb 19, 2013
with obama care the sky will fall,the sea will dry up,famine will destroy the earth,the moon will disappear,their will be no food supply,the country will be a police state,the government will have death panels,the muslim will force us to pray to Allah,the dead sea will come back to life,all your guns will confiscated,global warming is a democratic trick, obama army will come and get your first born son,it's all obama fault,run for your lives while their still time,the locust will cover the light of the sun,your drinking water will turn into blood,obama cre will be the end of the world,the sick and elderly will get more free sht oh lardy lardy.

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#14 Feb 19, 2013
redeemer wrote:
with obama care the sky will fall,the sea will dry up,famine will destroy the earth,the moon will disappear,their will be no food supply,the country will be a police state,the government will have death panels,the muslim will force us to pray to Allah,the dead sea will come back to life,all your guns will confiscated,global warming is a democratic trick, obama army will come and get your first born son,it's all obama fault,run for your lives while their still time,the locust will cover the light of the sun,your drinking water will turn into blood,obama cre will be the end of the world,the sick and elderly will get more free sht oh lardy lardy.
Wrong, fake black guy.

Costs will continue to climb. The quality of care will continue to decline. Employers will discontinue providing health insurance as a part of their benefit programs.

The employee will get screwed.

Mark my words, fake black guy. This is not a good deal for the employee.
real space ace

Saint Paul, MN

#15 Feb 19, 2013
Smart Liberal wrote:
I am telling you, it is not going to be the employer who ends up hurting as a result of the increased costs, and decreased quality of care.
This is something that will cause every private sector employee suffering in the wallet and with their health.
Yeah, but you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Awful Truth

Saint Paul, MN

#16 Feb 19, 2013
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, fake black guy.
Costs will continue to climb. The quality of care will continue to decline. Employers will discontinue providing health insurance as a part of their benefit programs.
The employee will get screwed.
Mark my words, fake black guy. This is not a good deal for the employee.
Which is why you are so opposed to it - because you don't care one bit about corporate propits, your only concern is for the little guy, right?

ROFLMAO!!!
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#17 Feb 19, 2013
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, fake black guy.
Costs will continue to climb. The quality of care will continue to decline. Employers will discontinue providing health insurance as a part of their benefit programs.
The employee will get screwed.
Mark my words, fake black guy. This is not a good deal for the employee.
I got this in an email today.

Obamacare changes the rules of the game totally. But it’s the law now and Obama’s victory assures that we are not going to be able to repeal it anytime soon.

The fundamental element of Obamacare is that it disempowers doctors, hospitals, patients, and even insurance companies and transfers the power to the federal government. But Washington exercises its power by setting broad bands, limitations, and directives each of which permit great room for individual maneuver.

Don’t believe the Obama propaganda that the new law won’t change anything in your own personal health care universe. It will, in reality change everything!

You will, sooner or later, have to buy new health insurance. The law ratchets back the incentives to employers to offer coverage so dramatically that millions will lose their coverage each year and the tendency will mount until there will be no more coverage on the job. So you’ll have to enter the health exchange to buy insurance. You need to know what is covered in the various plans and what is not. There are Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze plans and you have to know what each offers, at what price, and with what terms to decide which best fits your family’s needs.

Obamacare: Massive New Rules Revealed for 2013

If you don’t have insurance, you need to understand how to go about getting subsidies to help you buy a policy and to decide if you want full coverage or only for catastrophic care. You need to weigh the benefits of paying the fine (which increases every year) or getting coverage.

Once you are covered – in a new or an existing policy – you’ll need to understand how to work around the health care rationing (and ultimately the death panels) which finance the law. The Independent Payments Advisory Board (IPAD) will set these rules and regulations and your doctor will have to follow them. But there are ways to squeeze the best health care out even with these limits. You need to know how to go about it.

Obamacare, government takeover of the health insurance industry.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#18 Feb 19, 2013
You shouldn't read such partisan e-mails. Of course, you prefer lies, since you tell them, right mis-quoter ???

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#19 Feb 19, 2013
Awful Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why you are so opposed to it - because you don't care one bit about corporate propits, your only concern is for the little guy, right?
ROFLMAO!!!
You are just ignorant enough to believe that crapola you spew here, aren't you?

If you had a brain, you might realize how tightly entangled the profits of any firm are with the comfort level of its employees.

Have you ever seen an upside down pyramid? That is the way most small businesses are set up. The ownership is all the way at the bottom because we don't collect a penny until we pay everyone above us on that pyramid. If there is any money left over at the end of the month - and that is a very big "if" - we get to write ourselves a paycheck.

At the end of the year, we look for ways to invest our profits back into the business so we don't end up giving everything back to King Obama.

One of those ways is a bonus to those that made money for the company during the year. Another is to invest in further automation to make that everyone is more efficient, and make their tasks easier to accomplish.

If I am losing employees to other companies that pay my people more, it costs me far more than you will ever be smart enough to know. That is why we work so hard to make sure everyone is comfortable in their jobs, in their personal lives, and in their compensation.

We thrive because of the employees that we have. We would not be where we are if not for them. And they all know it. I make sure they know it.

The employees thrive because of our philosophy that we care about the person as much as the tasks they do. I make sure they know that too.

Now, I certainly am not unique in my approach. There is little in the world of business that is unique. It is the people and the personal touch that makes a business successful - and success is not always measured only in dollars.

As I said, if you had a brain...
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#20 Feb 19, 2013
You know.... Your continued stupidly/lying may qualify you for ObamaCare and we can possibly cure your sickness...

BTW- When we want bedtime stories, based on the life of a guy who can't find Hertz, we'll call YOU !!!

Probably on your free phoney phone ! LMAOROTFU~

Code name MADONNA ~~~!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 8 hr harmonious 33,096
Hillary clinton "businesses dont create jobs" 10 hr Liberal 20
Marcus, grow some balls... 13 hr God 1
America Deserves Hillary Clinton 16 hr Ebola Hussane Obama 1
The Liberal Ebola Nurse 16 hr Ebola Hussane Obama 1
Why Help The Africans? 16 hr Ebola Hussane Obama 1
Ebola Health Care Workers Are Pathetic 17 hr Ebola Hussane Obama 1
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]