Jump to content

Stupid Republicans


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Um, I didn't cite Mother Jones that I'm aware of.  Not even sure what you're talking about, other than just repeating rightwing talking points without any effort to back up the crap you're saying with facts.  

Again, you made a claim.  I proved that claim false.  Now you want to make even wilder claims about the future, having been shown to be wrong about the recent past.  That's doesn't make you look credible.  

You proved nothing.  You spent two minutes and found an article on Google and you think that makes you smart or superior. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

You proved nothing.  You spent two minutes and found an article on Google and you think that makes you smart or superior. 

I provided data from a credible source that contradicts your claim.  If you want to present alternative sources that support your claim, go for it.  But all you're doing now is squawking out your *** and dismissing facts and evidence that completely debunks your false claims.  

It seems like you're just here to spout talking points and wild claims, not engage in any actual discussion about facts and evidence related to those claims.  In other words, it sounds like you're just here to troll...or perhaps you're not smart enough to discuss facts and present evidence to support your wild claims.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I provided data from a credible source that contradicts your claim.  If you want to present alternative sources that support your claim, go for it.  But all you're doing now is squawking out your *** and dismissing facts and evidence that completely debunks your false claims.  

It seems like you're just here to spout talking points and wild claims, not engage in any actual discussion about facts and evidence related to those claims.  In other words, it sounds like you're just here to troll...or perhaps you're not smart enough to discuss facts and present evidence to support your wild claims.  

You really don't understand economics do you?  Do you understand how insurance works?   You cannot add the sickest of the sick to the health insurance rolls and contain costs - they are going to go up.

You really don't understand economics do you?  You cannot add poor people who pay little to no premium, and have insurance premiums do anything but go up for the paying customers.

You really don't understand economics do you?  You cannot have healthy young people not opt in to help cover.

There is massive subsidization going on - you have paying customers - when you add free riders and sick people - premiums go up - in a massive way.

You seem to have a hard time with economics.....hope this helps you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I provided data from a credible source that contradicts your claim.  If you want to present alternative sources that support your claim, go for it.  But all you're doing now is squawking out your *** and dismissing facts and evidence that completely debunks your false claims.  

It seems like you're just here to spout talking points and wild claims, not engage in any actual discussion about facts and evidence related to those claims.  In other words, it sounds like you're just here to troll...or perhaps you're not smart enough to discuss facts and present evidence to support your wild claims.  

this is all irrelevant. we are still in the 'building' stage of the ACA. much like a major construction project

the potential cost overrun as compared to original estimates is very small early in the project. 

however, thus far if you created a checklist of things that were projected/promised you would find more fails than successes and that is a bad thing when we are still in the early stages of implementation. add to that the miserable enrollment numbers and anybody with any sense can see that this is going in the wrong direction. it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

You really don't understand economics do you?  Do you understand how insurance works?   You cannot add the sickest of the sick to the health insurance rolls and contain costs - they are going to go up.

You really don't understand economics do you?  You cannot add poor people who pay little to no premium, and have insurance premiums do anything but go up for the paying customers.

You really don't understand economics do you?  You cannot have healthy young people not opt in to help cover.

There is massive subsidization going on - you have paying customers - when you add free riders and sick people - premiums go up - in a massive way.

You seem to have a hard time with economics.....hope this helps you.

You don't understand facts do you?.  You can blather all you want, but the facts are that your claim that premium increases "accelerated" after Obamacare is false.  Just like all of the blathering wild predictions by Republicans back in 2011 were false.  Just like all of your other blathering wild predictions of the future to come will be false.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

You don't understand facts do you?.  You can blather all you want, but the facts are that your claim that premium increases "accelerated" after Obamacare is false.  Just like all of the blathering wild predictions by Republicans back in 2011 were false.  Just like all of your other blathering wild predictions of the future to come will be false.  

I just educated you but you still have no comprehension of basic economics.  You cling to some article for your world view that is devoid of  basic economic gravity.  I laid it out for you in simple economic terms and it is  beyond your comprehension.  Others have tried as well - you are blind to economic facts because it clashes with your politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leon Troutsky said:

You don't understand facts do you?.  You can blather all you want, but the facts are that your claim that premium increases "accelerated" after Obamacare is false.  Just like all of the blathering wild predictions by Republicans back in 2011 were false.  Just like all of your other blathering wild predictions of the future to come will be false.  

Get Ready for Higher Obamacare Rates Next Year

Margot Sanger-Katz @sangerkatz MAY 6, 2016

It already looks clear that many Obamacare insurance plans are going to raise their prices significantly.

Over the last few years, average premium increases in the Obamacare markets have been lower than the increases for people who bought their own insurance in premiums before the Affordable Care Act. But several trends are coming together that suggest that pattern will break when plan premiums are announced in early November. Many plans may increase prices by 10 percent, or more. Over the last two years, I’ve written articleswarning against scary headlines that exaggerate premium increases. Next year, those scary headlines are more likely to be accurate.

Peter Lee runs the country’s largest and most stable state marketplace, Covered California. The typical rate increase has been only 4 percent over the last two years. Next year will be different. “We expect our rates to go up more than that this year,” he said at a recent meeting with health reporters. He predicted “big rate increases” in other states.

Only two states have collected proposed rates for 2017 yet, but in both of them, popular carriers are asking for double-digit increases. Insurers don’t always get what they want, and there is local variation in insurance rates, but these early requests are in line with statements from insurance officials and regulators about what to expect.

Most people who are buying insurance on the Obamacare marketplaces will not feel the effects of these increases; the formula that calculates federal subsidies will offset the increases for them. But rising prices will hurt higher-income Americans who have to pay their own premiums. That group is already paying a lot for health insurance, and the coverage often comes with high deductibles and other forms of out-of-pocket expenses.

That’s a problem, but some context is helpful. Higher prices are not, by themselves, a sign that the insurance marketplaces are dysfunctional or failing. Most of the reasons prices will go up next year are pretty predictable. The initial prices for Obamacare plans were much lower than forecasters expected. To some extent, the coming increases will be a correction, not a sign that markets are spiraling out of control.

There are three main reasons premiums are likely to be substantially more expensive — and one factor offsetting the increases:

Medical care is expected to cost more

Being treated will cost more in 2017 than it does now. That’s true for everyone using the medical system — not just people with Obamacare plans. It will be true for people in government insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid and for people who get their insurance through work. The cost of medical care basically goes up every year, so that’s not a huge surprise. But the last few years, that growth has been very slow by historical standards. Actuaries are predicting that 2017’s bump will be a little bigger. That increase is not because of Obamacare, but because of drugmakers releasing more new, expensive products; hospitals raising prices; and doctors offering more technologically complex treatments. Actuaries differ a bit in their estimates, and the cost of medical care varies by place, but the estimate I’ve heard in my reporting is somewhere around 6 percent.

The training wheels are coming off Obamacare

The health law included some protections for insurance companies in the first few years, devised to help the markets become stabilized and protect insurers who made miscalculations in setting prices while they were getting used to things. Two such programs expire at the end of this year. One is currently paying the bills for the rare patients who require extremely expensive medical care. Another was set up to protect insurers who made bad guesses on how sick their overall pool of customers would be. Together, the loss of those protections is expected to raise rates by about 4 percent.

A lot of insurers charged too little to cover costs

Even if medical costs stayed flat and the early buffer programs continued, a lot of insurance companies would still be raising their rates. That’s because the prices many of them charged in the first few years weren’t high enoughto cover the medical bills of their customers. Some insurers bet so badly that they have gone under or have chosen not to return to sell to the new marketplaces. Others plan to return, but will need to raise rates to make the business more sustainable.

Some of the early underpricing may have been strategic — as insurers were hoping to hook new customers with low prices and to try to keep their loyalty as prices rose. But it seems that a lot of the underpricing was a mistake, as insurers made bad estimates of how many people were likely to enter the markets in the early years and how much it would cost to pay for their medical care.

Not every insurance company is losing money in the Obamacare markets, so this last factor won’t affect every plan. But there is evidence that underpricing was fairly widespread, so it will affect a substantial number of them.

But: Congress gave plans a windfall

As part of its spending deal late last year, Congress gave the insurance industry a big financial gift that should help drive down premiums. Ittemporarily eliminated a tax on health insurance premiums. The tax had been passed along to customers, as taxes usually are, in the form of higher prices. Experts claim that the savings should flow the other way — making price increases about 2 percent less than they would be otherwise.

There are other ways the insurance plans can help keep down costs. Many have started narrowing their networks of doctors and hospitals to those they believe to be lower priced. That trend may continue and may help some insurance companies hold down price increases.

Most states need to submit proposed rates to the federal government next week. But the final numbers for most states won’t be clear until Nov. 1, when HealthCare.gov opens its doors for shoppers.

While headlines about high prices may be right, beware of predictions that they mean Obamacare is failing. A one-year price increase does not spell doom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

You don't understand facts do you?.  You can blather all you want, but the facts are that your claim that premium increases "accelerated" after Obamacare is false.  Just like all of the blathering wild predictions by Republicans back in 2011 were false.  Just like all of your other blathering wild predictions of the future to come will be false.  

Where for art thou, Trotsky?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, g-dawg said:

I just educated you but you still have no comprehension of basic economics.  You cling to some article for your world view that is devoid of  basic economic gravity.  I laid it out for you in simple economic terms and it is  beyond your comprehension.  Others have tried as well - you are blind to economic facts because it clashes with your politics.

He's not blind or stupid.  He just has a certain ideology that he is going to stick to come he.ll or high water, even if he knows he's wrong.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, g-dawg said:

LOL - the law is a loser and will fail - the DEMS desperately need all three houses of congress after this election to replace this loser of a law.

Stakes are high.

Do you mean the GOP?  The Dems would never replace this law and admit they were wrong.  In fact, they would double down, add more taxpayer dollars to it, and lie right your face saying how great it is.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, g-dawg said:

I just educated you but you still have no comprehension of basic economics.  You cling to some article for your world view that is devoid of  basic economic gravity.  I laid it out for you in simple economic terms and it is  beyond your comprehension.  Others have tried as well - you are blind to economic facts because it clashes with your politics.

You didn't "educate" about anything.  You spouted a bunch of nonsense about adding sick and poor while ignoring that the individual mandate brought millions of healthy young people into the insurance market.  

And it's ironic that you condescend about "economic facts" while ignoring ACTUAL facts...that premium increases slowed in the two years following the exchanges going into effect.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, g-dawg said:

Get Ready for Higher Obamacare Rates Next Year

Margot Sanger-Katz @sangerkatz MAY 6, 2016

It already looks clear that many Obamacare insurance plans are going to raise their prices significantly.

Over the last few years, average premium increases in the Obamacare markets have been lower than the increases for people who bought their own insurance in premiums before the Affordable Care Act. But several trends are coming together that suggest that pattern will break when plan premiums are announced in early November. Many plans may increase prices by 10 percent, or more. Over the last two years, I’ve written articleswarning against scary headlines that exaggerate premium increases. Next year, those scary headlines are more likely to be accurate.

Peter Lee runs the country’s largest and most stable state marketplace, Covered California. The typical rate increase has been only 4 percent over the last two years. Next year will be different. “We expect our rates to go up more than that this year,” he said at a recent meeting with health reporters. He predicted “big rate increases” in other states.

Only two states have collected proposed rates for 2017 yet, but in both of them, popular carriers are asking for double-digit increases. Insurers don’t always get what they want, and there is local variation in insurance rates, but these early requests are in line with statements from insurance officials and regulators about what to expect.

Most people who are buying insurance on the Obamacare marketplaces will not feel the effects of these increases; the formula that calculates federal subsidies will offset the increases for them. But rising prices will hurt higher-income Americans who have to pay their own premiums. That group is already paying a lot for health insurance, and the coverage often comes with high deductibles and other forms of out-of-pocket expenses.

That’s a problem, but some context is helpful. Higher prices are not, by themselves, a sign that the insurance marketplaces are dysfunctional or failing. Most of the reasons prices will go up next year are pretty predictable. The initial prices for Obamacare plans were much lower than forecasters expected. To some extent, the coming increases will be a correction, not a sign that markets are spiraling out of control.

There are three main reasons premiums are likely to be substantially more expensive — and one factor offsetting the increases:

Medical care is expected to cost more

Being treated will cost more in 2017 than it does now. That’s true for everyone using the medical system — not just people with Obamacare plans. It will be true for people in government insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid and for people who get their insurance through work. The cost of medical care basically goes up every year, so that’s not a huge surprise. But the last few years, that growth has been very slow by historical standards. Actuaries are predicting that 2017’s bump will be a little bigger. That increase is not because of Obamacare, but because of drugmakers releasing more new, expensive products; hospitals raising prices; and doctors offering more technologically complex treatments. Actuaries differ a bit in their estimates, and the cost of medical care varies by place, but the estimate I’ve heard in my reporting is somewhere around 6 percent.

The training wheels are coming off Obamacare

The health law included some protections for insurance companies in the first few years, devised to help the markets become stabilized and protect insurers who made miscalculations in setting prices while they were getting used to things. Two such programs expire at the end of this year. One is currently paying the bills for the rare patients who require extremely expensive medical care. Another was set up to protect insurers who made bad guesses on how sick their overall pool of customers would be. Together, the loss of those protections is expected to raise rates by about 4 percent.

A lot of insurers charged too little to cover costs

Even if medical costs stayed flat and the early buffer programs continued, a lot of insurance companies would still be raising their rates. That’s because the prices many of them charged in the first few years weren’t high enoughto cover the medical bills of their customers. Some insurers bet so badly that they have gone under or have chosen not to return to sell to the new marketplaces. Others plan to return, but will need to raise rates to make the business more sustainable.

Some of the early underpricing may have been strategic — as insurers were hoping to hook new customers with low prices and to try to keep their loyalty as prices rose. But it seems that a lot of the underpricing was a mistake, as insurers made bad estimates of how many people were likely to enter the markets in the early years and how much it would cost to pay for their medical care.

Not every insurance company is losing money in the Obamacare markets, so this last factor won’t affect every plan. But there is evidence that underpricing was fairly widespread, so it will affect a substantial number of them.

But: Congress gave plans a windfall

As part of its spending deal late last year, Congress gave the insurance industry a big financial gift that should help drive down premiums. Ittemporarily eliminated a tax on health insurance premiums. The tax had been passed along to customers, as taxes usually are, in the form of higher prices. Experts claim that the savings should flow the other way — making price increases about 2 percent less than they would be otherwise.

There are other ways the insurance plans can help keep down costs. Many have started narrowing their networks of doctors and hospitals to those they believe to be lower priced. That trend may continue and may help some insurance companies hold down price increases.

Most states need to submit proposed rates to the federal government next week. But the final numbers for most states won’t be clear until Nov. 1, when HealthCare.gov opens its doors for shoppers.

While headlines about high prices may be right, beware of predictions that they mean Obamacare is failing. A one-year price increase does not spell doom.

Thanks for posting this because it actually undermines your wild proclamations about the law.  First, it flatly refutes your initial claim that rates of increases "accelerated" after Obamacare:

Over the last few years,

average premium increases in the Obamacare markets have been lower than the increases for people who bought their own insurance in premiums before the Affordable Care Act.

Second, by laying out all of the causes for the increase, we can see which are due to Obamacare and which are not.  In fact, I don't see many of the causes that were discussed in the article to be due to inherent flaws with the ACA.  Nor is there anything that would suggest a complete meltdown of the law and/or the healthcare sector, as you predicted.  Will it suck that prices will increase?  Of course, but looking through those reasons, you can see that it's not the Chicken Little nonsense you've been spouting for pages now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Thanks for posting this because it actually undermines your wild proclamations about the law.  First, it flatly refutes your initial claim that rates of increases "accelerated" after Obamacare:

 

 

Second, by laying out all of the causes for the increase, we can see which are due to Obamacare and which are not.  In fact, I don't see many of the causes that were discussed in the article to be due to inherent flaws with the ACA.  Nor is there anything that would suggest a complete meltdown of the law and/or the healthcare sector, as you predicted.  Will it suck that prices will increase?  Of course, but looking through those reasons, you can see that it's not the Chicken Little nonsense you've been spouting for pages now.

the article lays out for you how the insurers were not charging enough to cover costs and they were losing money.

You also fail to recognize that young people opt out and sick people opt in - we are in what the insurance industry called the "death spiral" because the sickest people use HUGE amounts of healthcare that their premiums cannot come close to covering and there are not enough young/healthy people who don't need insurance signing up.   The administration has yet to hit one target - they are always under target for the amount of people they need.    As costs continue to go up - more and more people that were in - will opt out.

Obamacare is not some "pie in the sky" that you believe - TANSTAAFL - do you know what that means?  "Their Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"........

Obamacare picks winners and losers and the winners are the sick and the poor and everyone else is a loser.  Obamacare is making middle class people poorer and will continue to do so.   I have illustrated specifically how this law has hurt my family as others - it is not a theoretical argument - I have never been affected by Washington DC policy and law as much in my lifetime as I have been by this awful law - it is physically taking about $5,000/yr away from me and my family - and my story is not unique.   The DEMS only had the full power for two years 2008-2010 - and they damaged our country and health system in that short time - this is what happens when you give the liberals total control.  Higher premiums, higher deductibles, less doctor choices, inferior health care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Thanks for posting this because it actually undermines your wild proclamations about the law.  First, it flatly refutes your initial claim that rates of increases "accelerated" after Obamacare:

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Thanks for posting this because it actually undermines your wild proclamations about the law.  First, it flatly refutes your initial claim that rates of increases "accelerated" after Obamacare:

 

 

Second, by laying out all of the causes for the increase, we can see which are due to Obamacare and which are not.  In fact, I don't see many of the causes that were discussed in the article to be due to inherent flaws with the ACA.  Nor is there anything that would suggest a complete meltdown of the law and/or the healthcare sector, as you predicted.  Will it suck that prices will increase?  Of course, but looking through those reasons, you can see that it's not the Chicken Little nonsense you've been spouting for pages now.

Take the politics out of it. Take the ACA out of it. Pretend neither exists. Would you agree to the following?

The government will create a policy that will help get every citizen health insurance. They will not do anything about the cost increases of life-sustaining prescription drugs, which is still an enormous problem. They will not do anything about the uncontrolled costs of insurance expenses for the doctors. They will not do anything to make sure those insurance plans will cover your existing practitioners. They will not do anything to help ensure the majority of cost increases are not put on the public since it's their tax dollars that are buying down the cost of premiums in the first place. They will allow the insurers to define the price they will pay for your medical services. They will give the public's tax dollars directly to insurers. They will make every citizen pay for coverage they will never be able to leverage. And to top it off, they will increase deductibles beyond what most middle class Americans have in savings accounts in order to make sure the insurance companies have to pay less on claims, further limiting their expenses.

Is that a deal you would be happy to take? A deal that protects the profits of insurers that are making multi-billions every year. A deal that continues to protect the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry. A deal that does not make a single concession for the working class, can't keep their doctors, higher risk with higher deductibles, higher taxes, and premium increases outpacing the employers that over-work them and outsource their jobs.

Is that a deal you would be excited to accept?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pzummo said:

Take the politics out of it. Take the ACA out of it. Pretend neither exists. Would you agree to the following?

The government will create a policy that will help get every citizen health insurance. They will not do anything about the cost increases of life-sustaining prescription drugs, which is still an enormous problem. They will not do anything about the uncontrolled costs of insurance expenses for the doctors. They will not do anything to make sure those insurance plans will cover your existing practitioners. They will not do anything to help ensure the majority of cost increases are not put on the public since it's their tax dollars that are buying down the cost of premiums in the first place. They will allow the insurers to define the price they will pay for your medical services. They will give the public's tax dollars directly to insurers. They will make every citizen pay for coverage they will never be able to leverage. And to top it off, they will increase deductibles beyond what most middle class Americans have in savings accounts in order to make sure the insurance companies have to pay less on claims, further limiting their expenses.

Is that a deal you would be happy to take? A deal that protects the profits of insurers that are making multi-billions every year. A deal that continues to protect the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry. A deal that does not make a single concession for the working class, can't keep their doctors, higher risk with higher deductibles, higher taxes, and premium increases outpacing the employers that over-work them and outsource their jobs.

Is that a deal you would be excited to accept?  

 

You are exactly right.  No one is going to challenge what you said here.  The problems with the ACA is they went about the entire healthcare system problem in the wrong way.  Instead of trying to fix what was wrong with 15% of the uninsured, the law went after the 85% who were happy with their plans when surveyed before the new law went into effect.  Just like the government to try and fix what isn't broken before they try and fix what was broken.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The dean of the Harvard Medical School has been right all along.

Quote

If you could change one aspect of the Affordable Care Act, what would it be?

JEFFREY FLIER: Obamacare is the law of the land. But the hopes of many that its passage would usher in transformative change in the U.S. health-care market–solving the problems of cost, access and quality—are dissipating. This is entirely apart from the ineptitude of the law’s initial implementation, which has added to public confusion and waning confidence in the leaders and legislators who promoted it. Unfortunately, even if the exchanges worked as promised, the ACA leaves in place the core dysfunctional elements of our health-care system, thereby failing to deliver true reform, as I suggested in two articles written in 2009. An employment-based, tax-subsidized insurance system coupled with poorly designed federal Medicare and Medicaid programs promote overspending on health care of inadequate quality with unsatisfactory health outcomes.

Where to begin in proposing a path to change? Near-term repeal is politically impossible, and the lack of a coherent replacement doesn’t help. Worse, the current political culture in Washington precludes rational discussion of alternatives. These should be based on plans to evolve from employer-based insurance toward diverse, innovative systems of care driven by patients as informed consumers, with government providing a safety net including subsidies as necessary.

So what would I recommend as a first step toward repair? I would launch an independent, nonpartisan commission tasked with identifying and proposing repair of those features of the excessively complex legislation that inhibit innovation and competition. We must resist the influence of politically well connected insurers, providers and other interests who seek to maintain the status quo. When people eventually recognize how much of their wealth and health is being needlessly dissipated, and when they become empowered by tools to make informed choices, they will, as they do in other markets, demand efficiencies and innovations in insurance and care. And these will be provided by innovators and health entrepreneurs now hobbled or sidelined by poorly designed laws and regulations, including the ACA.

This may seem be a long and uncertain process. But it needs to start now. Real health reform has yet to begin.

Dr. Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) is dean of the Harvard Medical School

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2016 at 9:06 PM, g-dawg said:

You proved nothing.  You spent two minutes and found an article on Google and you think that makes you smart or superior. 

You do know who you're arguing with? Trout is Baghdad Bob. Let's be specific. Obamacare is meant to fail. It was sold as a lie, and is meant to go single payer, government to the rescue. I will give you 1 clue to how they set it up to fail from the get go.

1. The provision allowing for kids to stay on their parents plan until 26.

2. The entire system is supposed to be paid for by NEW young people. How can you have new young people who are still living at home on their parents plan?

The legislation will be cancelled. The republican party already has numerous ideas ready to roll out. The left will cry and moan, but this has got to be cancelled out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no market force for decreasing cost.  There has to be a regulation.  We believe all this crap like dogma.  Regulation bad free market good... Absolutely no dam context.  It's like dealing with management.  You want to point to a number to make decisions when the number is meaningless.  It's why I am sick of both republicans and democrats.  They try to make it seem like it's one thing when it's really a huge complex Cluster f&$k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...