I might write again in 2013, but not today.
Open Thread.
Make a new account
Volume 170 -- Halloween Hazards, Chapter 1 Volume 169 -- The Fed's plan to help mom and pop
Happy Tuesday, my good people.
Oh, and a Brazilian surfer likely broke the record for biggest wave ever surfed -- estimated at 100 feet or more. The photos and video are unreal. (link)
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel:
"The admitting-privileges provision of House Bill 2 does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman's health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her,"
Yeakel's decision comes four months after Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis, now a candidate for governor, staged a dramatic 13-hour filibuster against the proposed restrictions, widely considered among the most stringent in the country.
It's funny/sad in Houston I used to live right by Planned Parenthood, where there was always protestors, yet maybe a mile down at the medical center, not a soul. They have an special facility just for abortions, but the protesters would never venture over to an area of wealth, no one would put up with the stupidity there.
When I was having a bad day, I would drive by PP and honk, the idiots would all get excited, then I would flip them off.
It always ticked me off that people I knew didn't live anywhere near downtown would take the time to travel to what they surely considered hell on Earth, aka my neighborhood, to make people already having a crappy day, feel even worse.
Lawyers for Texas have asked a federal appeals court to grant an emergency stay allowing the state to immediately begin enforcing a new abortion regulation that could close 13 of the state's 32 abortion clinics. Filed Tuesday morning, the motion asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to halt an injunction issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin while the state's appeal of Yeakel's ruling proceeds. Yeakel ruled Monday that a key provision of House Bill 2, requiring abortion doctors to gain admitting privileges in a nearby hospital, violated the U.S. Constitution by placing unreasonable burden on women seeking an abortion while offering no discernible health benefit for patients. The state's motion, signed by Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell with the state Attorney General's Office, argued that Yeakel's ruling applied the wrong constitutional standard and failed to cite "a single (undue) burden on a single abortion patient." "Indeed, the plaintiffs acknowledged that HB 2 would impose little or no burden on tens of thousands of the state's abortion patients, as their expert found that more than 90% of them would remain able to secure an abortion within 100 miles of their residence," the motion said. Mitchell also asked the New Orleans-based appeals court to set an expedited briefing schedule in hopes of having a hearing as early as January. Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights -- one of the abortion providers and supporters that sued to overturn HB 2 -- said state lawyers were seeking to protect an "underhanded restriction" designed to close clinics, not protect women's health. "We hope the court will continue to keep this harmful provision blocked through the course of this appeal and carefully consider the devastating and immediate impact this restriction would have on Texas women," Northup said.
Filed Tuesday morning, the motion asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to halt an injunction issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin while the state's appeal of Yeakel's ruling proceeds.
Yeakel ruled Monday that a key provision of House Bill 2, requiring abortion doctors to gain admitting privileges in a nearby hospital, violated the U.S. Constitution by placing unreasonable burden on women seeking an abortion while offering no discernible health benefit for patients.
The state's motion, signed by Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell with the state Attorney General's Office, argued that Yeakel's ruling applied the wrong constitutional standard and failed to cite "a single (undue) burden on a single abortion patient."
"Indeed, the plaintiffs acknowledged that HB 2 would impose little or no burden on tens of thousands of the state's abortion patients, as their expert found that more than 90% of them would remain able to secure an abortion within 100 miles of their residence," the motion said.
Mitchell also asked the New Orleans-based appeals court to set an expedited briefing schedule in hopes of having a hearing as early as January.
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights -- one of the abortion providers and supporters that sued to overturn HB 2 -- said state lawyers were seeking to protect an "underhanded restriction" designed to close clinics, not protect women's health.
"We hope the court will continue to keep this harmful provision blocked through the course of this appeal and carefully consider the devastating and immediate impact this restriction would have on Texas women," Northup said.
LINK to TX OBSERVER
The Seven Mountains they are trying to conquer: Arts; Business; Education; Family; Government; Media; and Religion.
These people are the personification of evil. Parent
But when it comes to serious illness & disease like cancer, we'll probably have to find a US hospital willing to barter with us for our exports. And I, for one, am willing to sacrifice some quantity of life for the high quality of life the Republic will surely offer. Parent
What these false prophets don't understand is Beelzebub and the Whore 'a Babylon want people to believe that.. Parent
"These guys can't stand western culture or music, making Britney's hits perfect," Owens explained. "It's so effective the ship's security rarely needs to resort to firing guns."
Seems as if I have something in common with Somali pirates.
Probably means I should just do some, you know, actual work...
Also testifying was NSA Director Keith Alexander who claimed that "the information that leads people to believe that NSA or US (apparently two different entities) collected that information is false, and it's false that it was collected on European citizens."
It has been reported that President Obama was unaware of the extent of spying despite such extensive spying being a top tenet. However, the president did indicated that our intelligence system will be re-assessed. Perhaps a sign of seriousness to that re-assessment would be to give Jim and Keith the boot.
In particular, they say the claims that the President didn't know about spying on foreign leaders is hogwash.Precisely how the surveillance is conducted is unclear. But if a foreign leader is targeted for eavesdropping, the relevant U.S. ambassador and the National Security Council staffer at the White House who deals with the country are given regular reports, said two former senior intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing classified information.[...snip...] The ramifications here may be serious, as the intelligence community apparently views this as President Obama completely throwing them under the bus:Some U.S. intelligence officials said they were being blamed by the White House for conducting surveillance that was authorized under the law and utilized at the White House. "People are furious," said a senior intelligence official who would not be identified discussing classified information. "This is officially the White House cutting off the intelligence community."[...snip...] What that actually means in the long run is less certain. It's still entirely possible that this is all for show. In fact, the White House has already said Feinstein's claim that the US would stop spying on foreign leaders is simply not true. That said, if this means more and more NSA employees are disgruntled, I would imagine there are plenty of reporters ready and willing to help them blow the whistle on more things happening within the intelligence community. I'm guessing they already know what Glenn Greenwald's email is, for example...
Precisely how the surveillance is conducted is unclear. But if a foreign leader is targeted for eavesdropping, the relevant U.S. ambassador and the National Security Council staffer at the White House who deals with the country are given regular reports, said two former senior intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing classified information.
The ramifications here may be serious, as the intelligence community apparently views this as President Obama completely throwing them under the bus:
Some U.S. intelligence officials said they were being blamed by the White House for conducting surveillance that was authorized under the law and utilized at the White House. "People are furious," said a senior intelligence official who would not be identified discussing classified information. "This is officially the White House cutting off the intelligence community."
"People are furious," said a senior intelligence official who would not be identified discussing classified information. "This is officially the White House cutting off the intelligence community."
What that actually means in the long run is less certain. It's still entirely possible that this is all for show. In fact, the White House has already said Feinstein's claim that the US would stop spying on foreign leaders is simply not true.
That said, if this means more and more NSA employees are disgruntled, I would imagine there are plenty of reporters ready and willing to help them blow the whistle on more things happening within the intelligence community. I'm guessing they already know what Glenn Greenwald's email is, for example...
Is there anyone on the planet who believes this clown ?
What is worse, he has to know that he's lies will eventually be uncovered as more and more Snowden revelations are revealed, and doesn't give a F.
He is basically saying it's no big deal if Germany listens to Obama's phone calls, it expected.
Really, he thinks we are that GD gullible, Congress certainly is. Parent
He said he had little patience for the complaints of foreign leaders. "If any foreign leader is talking on a cellphone or communicating on unclassified email, what the U.S. might learn is the least of their problems."
Is Blair suggesting Merkel (and everybody else on planet earth)take up smoke signaling for a little privacy? Parent
This gets more FUBAR'd every day.
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.
Read the rest of the article here.
This is bad news for Dems. And could really affect their chances in '14. And it really blows a lot of the work they've done to tarnish the Republican brand.
Because not only does it show Republicans were right on this aspect of ACA. But the administration knew they were right, knew it would be a problem, so they lied about it.
And I don't think the spin, suggested at the end of the article, is going to work, the idea that people will get better plans. Because that also seems untrue. And, of course, that isn't what Obama said.
That's what the administrations central argument is. The ACA planners knew they needed not only the uninsured but health insured people who were not paying their "fair share". They needed to force these people into their plans so they'd have enough healthy bodies to pay for all the goodies they've been bragging about.
A freind of my sent me an email from his insurer with the following...
...update your current policy to be ACA compliant effective January 1, 2014 and will provide coverage for a new set of healthcare service categories called Essential Health Benefits (EHBs). EHBs include coverage for a variety of services, including - preventive and wellness services, coverage of mental health and substance use disorders, maternity coverage, chronic disease management, and many other benefits and services that may be new to your coverage.
My friend is a married man in his late 30's with a young child. He does not need mental health, substance, chronic disease management and most of these "many" benefits he's going to now have to pay for. For that reason the central planners are forcing him to get these things so he can pay for someone else. Without people like him the thing falls apart.
You can't sit here and tell me now they didn't know this was going to happen and they didn't intend this to happen.
They lied to squeak this thing through congress and hoped the blowback would be small.
We shall see. The press and the dems are spinning this with more lies and maybe they'll get away with it.
I suspect they'll have a hard time defending against legislation that says you can keep your plan if you want.
One thing is for sure. The revelations for ACA and how much it changes our health system will continue to flow out and it's also possible that the website won't be fixed like they say it will.
2014 is going to be an interesting year for the president and his cronies. One things for sure. The shutdown is a distant memory. Parent
"Affordable" and "Care" are just newspeak synonyms for profits profits profits. Strike up the band, "Hail to the CEO"! Parent
many other benefits and services that may be new to your coverage.
And consider this, if you would: one of the things the ACA does do is bring better geographic equity to insurance coverage. I happen to live in a state that long ago mandated benefits that insurance companies serving other states are still refusing to provide - because no one's making them do it. That is, by the way, the reason conservatives want insurance companies to be able to sell policies across state lines - so they can establish home offices in states with little regulation and few mandates to make it easier to have to provide less coverage.
Your friend's complaint is just the latest version of the argument conservatives can always be guaranteed to make: "If I don't need X, why do I have to pay for others who do?" In their world, there is no "greater good," there's just whatever works best for them.
Look, I happen to believe that we missed out on an opportunity to truly reform a dangerously dysfunctional system, but corporate interests prevailed, and here we are.
Conservatives probably should be hoping this whole thing succeeds, though, because the Obamacare model is the same one conservatives want to bring to social programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Michael Lind in Salon, via PNHP:
Konczal's second point is even more important -- the worst features of Obamacare are the very features that conservatives want to impose on all federal social policy: means-testing, a major role for the states, and subsidies to private providers instead of direct public provision of health or retirement benefits. This is not surprising, because Obamacare's models are right-wing models -- the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan in the 1990s and Mitt Romney's "Romneycare" in Massachusetts. This point is worth dwelling on. Conservatives want all social insurance to look like Obamacare. The radical right would like to replace Social Security with an Obamacare-like system, in which mandates or incentives pressure Americans to steer money into tax-favored savings accounts like 401(k)s and to purchase annuities at retirement, with means-tested subsidies to help the poor make their private purchases. And most conservative and libertarian plans for healthcare for the elderly involve replacing Medicare with a totally new system designed along the lines of Obamacare, with similar mandates or incentives to compel the elderly to buy private health insurance from for-profit corporations.
This point is worth dwelling on. Conservatives want all social insurance to look like Obamacare. The radical right would like to replace Social Security with an Obamacare-like system, in which mandates or incentives pressure Americans to steer money into tax-favored savings accounts like 401(k)s and to purchase annuities at retirement, with means-tested subsidies to help the poor make their private purchases. And most conservative and libertarian plans for healthcare for the elderly involve replacing Medicare with a totally new system designed along the lines of Obamacare, with similar mandates or incentives to compel the elderly to buy private health insurance from for-profit corporations.
Nothing like wanting to have it both ways, eh? Parent
ACA is changing the insurance market and eliminating a product that was offered.
Maybe it's for the good of society as a whole but what is happening is a little bit of freedom or choice is being taken away by regulation.
Spin it however you want. Last year you could buy a certain kind of policy, now you can't.
ACA made that happen and the dems fibbed, misled and outright lied in order to get this thing passed.
Can you grant that one might be a little skeptical of the "benefits" of this plan since nothing they've said has proven out so fare.
You can keep your plan....nope It won't add to the deficit...nope The website will be easy to use...nope The website will be ready to go Oct. 1st...nope
On and on. Everyday we find out more about the law that wasn't read by congress.
If you're a progressive that doesn't mind a little extra regulation you bat your eyes and move on to the next argument.
If you're not a progressive but instead a libertarian you point out the obvious.
The administration blatantly lied to cover up the realities of this legislation.
Let's all understand the basics and stop moving the goal posts to defend what was an obvious lie. Parent
While I expect that it will help some people, I do not believe it does anything to help solve the real crisis we have in making sure that everyone has access to affordable health care; in fact, I believe it further entrenches a dysfunctional, broken system.
What I do take issue with are some of the arguments you're making.
I have individual insurance. Multiple times a year, CareFirst sends me a notification when changes are made to the plan - some new exclusion, a new endorsement, a swapping-out of one paragraph in a particular section of the benefits description for another.
The point is that plans change all the time; this is not something new. What is happening is that, rather than go through each of the millions of individual policies that were not in existence in March of 2010 - the grandfather date - to determine what these plans need to be ACA-compliant - and no doubt because they saw an opportunity to make some money - they simply advised those subscribers that their plan was being discontinued as of some date, and offering them the choice of going out on the exchange, or applying for a new, ACA-compliant plan.
For those of us whose plans are grandfathered, we don't have to give up our plans, but the insurance company does not have to make them compliant, either; if we want the benefits mandated by the ACA, we have to get a new plan. This is likely to be more of an issue for people who live in states where a lot of these new mandates are not already in place.
I am in no way, shape or form defending the way the president and those who supported the law sold it to the American people. If they didn't outright lie, they at least did not tell the whole truth - and there's certainly nothing new there, either. They said what they needed to to garner support - they do that all the time. I hate it, you hate it, but nothing we do ever seems to be able to stop it.
The ACA was just flat-out the wrong way to address the very real problems in our health care system; giving insurance companies four years to figure out how to game the law was a seriously bad decision.
Bad policy makes for bad law, and while there are elements of the Act that do reflect good policy, the way in which the insurance companies are getting around the costs of having to implement them tells me this was the wrong approach. Parent
ACA regulated them away.
As you say yourself the president and the writers of this law knew this and misled us (IE LIED) about it. You can refrain from the word lie but I don't see a need to.
Not only did hey lie about the obvious reality they specifically wrote the legislation in a way making it more likely that companies would dump these plans. Parent
Authored by democrats, voted on by democrats.
It sucks, it's terrible and it's blue.
Either defend it or trash it but stop with the nonsense that this is a republican invention.
Senate 60 Democratic Votes YES 39 Republican votes No 1 Republican vote - not voting
House 219 Democratic Votes YES 34 Democratic Votes NO 178 Republican Votes No
Not a single republican voted FOR this plan.
Democrats rammed this thing through.
They own it. Parent
The goal of the ACA was good, even as the implementation sucked. Your party's policy, that poor people (the "takers") don't deserve to live is the crux of the matter.
And, to use your words, "you own it."
Be proud. Parent
Is the Obama administration the best vehicle for conservative health care ideas? Parent
So one think tank in the early 90's dreams up a "similar" plan so we don't hold Obama responsible?
Just want to know what you're point is since it's confusing. Are you now a libertarian or just find it impossible to blame democrats (especially Obama) for anything.
This is desperate spinning by the Obama bots and progressives in general.
It's nonsense.
Also just the idea for legislation is one thing. As we've learned recently how you write and apply the law is what matters and that can't be put at anyone's feet other then the democrats. Parent
How many republicans voted for it?
None - because it was Obama's plan. But if someone takes your plan and builds it - and you don't like it because you don't want to help the builder - you're still the designer.
The Heritage Foundation/Republican 1994 Plan/ACA/Obamacare plan.
Heh. Parent
They wrote it. They passed it.
Double Heh Parent
But it's a DINO plan if ever there was one, not surprising since we have a DINO president, too.
At this point, it may matter politically who "owns" the ACA, but since all the GOP seems to bring to the table is a whole lot of crazy - they seem genetically incapable of making sense - it probably won't hurt Dems all that much.
I'd add "heh," but I'm too busy gagging over the whole sorry mess. Parent
Yep, never fear. The roll out won't matter in the next election outside of those tea party districts because you have people screaming about the ACA who actually wanted to blow the entire country up.
And Rand Paul thinks DNA testing is going to lead to eugenics. Yes, the GOP has gone completely crazy. Parent
BTW - Did you ever figure out why "Medicaid for all" would work, while Medicare for all wouldn't? Or why a single payer system can't work in the US with 316 million people, but it works just fine in Japan with 127 million people? I was looking forward to learning where that line falls, but you never responded. Parent
Republicans voted against because OBAMA. Not because of anything inherent to the plan. Your link to an opinion piece not withstanding.
You and the author are entitled to any d@mn misguided opinion that you want to have. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. And the fact is that this debacle of a plan can be found in the 90's at the Heritage Foundation. Parent
Doesn't matter who thought it up.
It matters who wrote the bill and who implemented it.
Democrats did and they own it. Stop making excuses for them. Parent
Republicans voted against because OBAMA.
And the Heritage Foundation created it.
It is a given that this Republican Frankenstein of a program could not have been implemented without the Democratic party. But it is still a Republican plan. That is a fact. No matter how much you want to howl about that, it will always be true.
I must say that your sort lucked out. Y'all got the kind of privatization and stuffing of industry pockets that y'all love and you get to blame Democrats for the inevitable fall out. Win-win for y'all.
This debacle demonstrates why I'm no longer a Dem. I don't and won't make excuses for them. Maybe one day you'll stop making excuses for "conservative" failures.
I could stay out of this, but when someone is chronically, stupidly blind I feel compelled to provide glasses. Parent
Some orginization affiliated with republicans though up a similar plan.
Then you're party (I supposed) passed the law but that's not relevant?
Agree to disagree. Keep your "facts" if it makes you feel better.
Even if the republicans thought it up, the dems put it into practice on a party line vote.
You're only real point would be they can't execute a good idea. Parent
Not a party that runs the presidency and congress.
So on one hand you have a think tank and the other you have a party that wrote a bill and is implementing it.
Hmmmm. Who do I hold responsible? Parent
Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States." Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."
Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Here's a chart comparing the ACA to the GOP plan.
More:
Endorsed by Stuart Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation and conservative economists such as Milton Friedman and Wharton's Mark Pauly, individual mandates as an idea were at least partially generated by pro-free-enterprise intellectuals. "Heritage figured that since everyone in the country was getting some form of health coverage anyway, everyone ought to buy it," explained Frum. "But unlike most liberal schemes, the Heritage plan imposed the obligation to buy insurance, but on individuals rather than employers." During the early '90s debate, the individual mandate and Heritage plan generally even came to "[look] like a daring free-market reform." More than just a dust-gathering think tank idea, the individual mandate won plaudits from some prominent Republican elected leaders. In late 1993, Senate Leader Bob Dole cosponsored legislation with John Chafee that would have required individuals to buy health insurance.
During the early '90s debate, the individual mandate and Heritage plan generally even came to "[look] like a daring free-market reform." More than just a dust-gathering think tank idea, the individual mandate won plaudits from some prominent Republican elected leaders. In late 1993, Senate Leader Bob Dole cosponsored legislation with John Chafee that would have required individuals to buy health insurance.
So, pardon the indelicacy of what I'm about to say, but you need to just STFU already about how this is all the fault of Democrats. I'm about as PO'd as anyone can be that Democrats so badly failed on this issue, but let's just stop with the illusion that "Obamacare" didn't begin life as a Heritage Foundation/Bob Dole-blessed GOP plan, shall we? And that all these terrible provisions and requirements - especially the individual mandate - were not once hailed as good things by conservatives. Parent
Pelosi and Reid wrote it.
Obama campaigned for it while president for a year.
Only democrats voted for it.
He then ran a re-election campaign on it.
Republicans voted 40 plus times to repeal it (a point often laughed about on this site) and now the only lame retort you can give me is to drag up links from 20 years ago to try and spread the blame.
Crazy. Even if I grant you that OBAMACARE is a republican program, which I don't, it's a poor one. Your only real point would be that democrats are incapable of executing good ideas.
You can not like it and admit that Dems own it at the same time. I realize I'm in a democratic echo chamber but enough is enough.
It's not that hard.
Also, please don't tell me to STFU. Parent
Also, please don't tell me to STFU.
Mar. 5, 1992
Heritage Foundation The Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan (10 MB) , by Stuart M. Butler
The Heritage plan had a basic plan required by law.
Minimum standard coverage required for all Americans o $1,000 deductible ($2,000 per family) o $5,000 cost-sharing maximum Benefits Inpatient hospital 80% (365 day maximum) Inpatient hospital 80% (365 day maximum) Hospital Alternatives Yes (extended or home health care) Physician Services 75% Prenatal/Well-Baby/ 75% Well-Child Care Diagnostic Tests 75% Prescription Drugs (inpatient) 75% Emergency Services 100% Mental health, Dental or Vision - not covered
o $1,000 deductible ($2,000 per family) o $5,000 cost-sharing maximum
Benefits Inpatient hospital 80% (365 day maximum) Inpatient hospital 80% (365 day maximum) Hospital Alternatives Yes (extended or home health care) Physician Services 75% Prenatal/Well-Baby/ 75% Well-Child Care Diagnostic Tests 75% Prescription Drugs (inpatient) 75% Emergency Services 100%
Mental health, Dental or Vision - not covered
The very first plan from 1989 was more in line with catastrophic coverage but:
The essence of Obamacare, as of Romneycare, is a three-legged stool of regulation and subsidies: community rating requiring insurers to make the same policies available to everyone regardless of health status; an individual mandate, requiring everyone to purchase insurance, so that healthy people don't opt out; and subsidies to keep insurance affordable for those with lower incomes. The original Heritage plan from 1989 had all these features.
The original Heritage plan from 1989 had all these features.
And...Reid and Pelosi did NOT write the law; in large part it was written by Max Baucus' chief health counsel, Liz Fowler who was a WellPoint vice president. This is not a secret - it was discussed frequently on many blogs. Wellpoint, as you may know, is a health insurance company.
As a Democrat, that kind of thing makes me livid - it tells me that the plan wasn't written for our benefit, but to maintain the insurance company stranglehold on the system.
Get your facts right, and then rant away. But every time you state something that is categorically untrue, you diminish the entirety of your argument. Parent
They didn't write it. They didn't campaign on it and they didn't put it into law. We could go into huge minutia pointing out the ways Republicans would have done things differently but what's the point? To quote Hillary...."What's the difference?" It didn't happen. History will write down in clear black ink that democrats wrote and passed this bill on their own.
I just see this as a desperate attempt to deal with the cold reality that the party you most favor fed us this piece of garbage.
Only one party is taking the fall for this. Democrats. Only one party gets the rewards if it pulls it out. Democrats.
BTD has an "I told you so" post up today. How convenient. Yes he was never a fan but it seems to me that there are a lot of democrats/progressives heading for the exits and crying "Republican Ideas" as they head out the door.
So who is more responsible and what is the percentage?
I'll start.
Republicans 1% responsible.
Democrats 99% responsible.
How's that? I've conceded you're point. Parent
Interest in Maryland Health Connection remains strong, and participation continues to grow. Since October 1, there have been more than 300,000 unique visitors to our website and more than 33,000 calls to our call centers. More than 40,000 people have created identity-verified accounts for their households, with the most common age groups 25-29 and 30-34 and approximately 36% created by individuals under the age of 35. 53% of account holders are women. More than 27,000 Marylanders have learned whether or not they are eligible for financial assistance. As of October 23, 2013, more than 3,100 Maryland households have chosen to enroll through Maryland Health Connection. As of September 2013, 82,473 Marylanders are signed up to be automatically enrolled in Medicaid coverage on January 1, 2014. Combined with enrollments through Maryland Health Connection, more than 85,000 Marylanders are on track to begin accessing affordable, quality health coverage in 2014 as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
As of September 2013, 82,473 Marylanders are signed up to be automatically enrolled in Medicaid coverage on January 1, 2014. Combined with enrollments through Maryland Health Connection, more than 85,000 Marylanders are on track to begin accessing affordable, quality health coverage in 2014 as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
In other words, 97% of Marylanders who are "on track to begin accessing affordable, quality health coverage" are not participating in the state run exchange. Parent
My friend is a married man in his late 30's with a young child. He does not need mental health, substance, chronic disease management and most of these "many" benefits he's going to now have to pay for. For that reason the central planners are forcing him to get these things so he can pay for someone else.
I'm in my mid-40s. I haven't needed those things for the past 25 years, and yet they were included in my health plans - no "central planners" involved.
Gotta love the ridiculous, load terms the wingers adopt when it suits their purposes ... Parent
Thanks to ACA.
The mental knots libs are doing to defend this is pretty funny. It's simple. To make this work on paper (it's not really going to work) dems lied about people not losing coverage.
Here's our president lying in case you missed it. Parent
You're choosing to point the finger at the ACA and use ridiculous hyperbolic language associated with communist economic systems ("central planners") because it suits your agenda. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to be critical of the ACA, but the winger's use of such hyperbolic language makes their agenda (and their claims) all too obvious - and laughable. Parent
But ACA allows for people to have incomplete coverage. And the administration promised you could keep your plan.
If ACA mandated 100% coverage for everyone. And people were told that their plans would change. Slado's point would be irrelevent.
But it doesn't, and they didn't.
So, whatever words he chooses, Slado still has a point. And it's one that will resonate with a lot of people. Parent
Okay. Parent
Why? Because it didn't include EHB's. It says it right in the email he was sent.
Yes, some insurance, probably most includes stuff you don't need or might not need.
But before this law you could buy more plans then you can next year. ACA regulated away certain polices like the one my friend was purchasing.
He's a lawyer so I can assure you the plan he had isn't one of the ones your friend Jay Carney is talking about.
The president and his central planners lied for years about this reality knowing the regulations they put into ACA would make these policies go away. They did this so people like my friend would pay insurers more money that could be used to hand out additional benefits and cover the costs (attempt anyway) that 15 million uninsured people would put into the system.
That's a fact....Period. Parent
I'm whining about central planners? What would you call an Administration that took over 1/6th of the economy and screwed it up?
I'd call that central planning.
My opinion anyway. Parent
Hate to break it to you, but the healthcare sector is working just as well/poorly as it was before the ACA. But it's precisely wingnut language like that ("central planning", "socialized medicine!, etc.) which scared enough people to prevent real reform (i.e. single payer).
Heck'uva job, Brownie! Parent
The very problem is that the government hasn't "taken over" healthcare, but chose to prop up the country's most inefficient business model - private health insurance companies - by enacting the Republican plan of '94. Parent
And speaking of, funny how the R's are latching onto this 1/6th mem, but seemed to miss GWB screwing 100% of the economy not so long ago.
I guess it's better in their minds to not have insurance than to have a 401k worth about half of what it was pre-Bush.
ACA is a mess, but your argument above is so GD ridiculous, stick with the stuff actually wrong with it, no need to start making up random BS about 1/6th this or that.
And for a self described Libertarian, you sure do have those Fox News republican talking points down pat. Just another republican too embarrassed to actually admit it I suspect.
Calling oneself king of the park does not make them king of the park. Parent
What you can't get if you don't buy via the exchange is a federal subsidy - if your lawyer friend doesn't qualify for subsidies, there's no advantage to him going through the exchange.
I think you need to know a lot more than just these talking points you're regurgitating. Parent
He now has to spend hours if not days of his own time looking for new insurance and pricing either on the exchange or the private market a new plan. Most likely he will have to pay more for a plan he previously didn't buy because it didn't interest him.
Now that type of plan doesn't exist. ACA got rid of it.
He wouldn't have had to do anything of the sort if not for the administration.
You're argument is that it's possible he would have got dumped anyway. Sure it's possible but it's for sure his plan can't exist anymore because of this law.
What am I missing? Parent
To top it off, the GOP has been lying about people's costs going up. They have been comparing things like the cost of catastrophic insurance with the cost of insurance with a 2K deductible. Parent
Including many people who were promised they wouldn't be effected.
ACA is bad policy. And the way it's being handled is bad, bad politics.
Dems will need a lot of help from their insurance company buds to prevent this one from biting them in the ass in '14.
And average Americans will need even more help to find an affordable plan. Parent
The shutdown effected almost nobody.
I understand that it didn't affect you, so apparently everyone else is "almost nobody".
me me me me me me me
That's all that matters, right? Parent
That $24 billion number was concocted by Standard and Poors. Notorious liars whose fake rating of Mortgage Bonds was a key to the 2008 financial meltdown. Parent
But I can tell you as someone who worked in the DC area for years -- it may not have affected federal employees as much as was touted, but the residual fallout was devastating for many. And for many people that I know. Some small businesses that counted on government employees for patronage won't recover at all.
I don't know what the figures are, but I know personally many of the "nobodies" that were affected. And my circle is rather small really. Parent
When you place back pay as a 100% hit on the economy, you know that's not true. Because most of that money re-enters the economy.
They also suggest money was lost because government contracts weren't approved. Though much of the government went on a spending spree prior to the shutdown to avoid that. For example, the Pentagon awarded, not merely approved, $5.5 billion in contracts on the eve of the shutdown. That money came earlier than expected. And there's no indication that S&P counted that against any potential loses.
And on and on and on.
Plus, as I stated before, S&P are known and proven liars. Parent
Democrats Protest $5 Billion Food Stamp Cut They Voted For
WASHINGTON -- A group of nine Democratic members of the House of Representatives held a press conference outside the Capitol on Tuesday to demand Congress avert an automatic food stamp cut scheduled to take effect on Friday. "The average family of four will see a $36 cut in their monthly benefits, bringing the average per-person benefit from $1.50 a meal to $1.40 a meal," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said. "Shame on this Congress for allowing this to happen." But the cut, which will reduce monthly benefits for all 47 million Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by roughly 7 percent, is happening thanks mainly to Democratic votes that hastened the demise of a benefit increase from the 2009 stimulus bill. Each of the representatives at Tuesday's presser voted with their party for a pair of 2010 spending bills that set the cuts in motion.
WASHINGTON -- A group of nine Democratic members of the House of Representatives held a press conference outside the Capitol on Tuesday to demand Congress avert an automatic food stamp cut scheduled to take effect on Friday.
"The average family of four will see a $36 cut in their monthly benefits, bringing the average per-person benefit from $1.50 a meal to $1.40 a meal," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said. "Shame on this Congress for allowing this to happen."
But the cut, which will reduce monthly benefits for all 47 million Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by roughly 7 percent, is happening thanks mainly to Democratic votes that hastened the demise of a benefit increase from the 2009 stimulus bill. Each of the representatives at Tuesday's presser voted with their party for a pair of 2010 spending bills that set the cuts in motion.
Official soundtrack here
2014 should be an interesting year on this front too...hopefully Walmart chimes in, Congress will listen to the Waltons...the Waltons are as hungry for that food stamp paper as brokedicks are for food. Parent
That's all that 1.40-a-meal (are they serious?!) with many running out of food before the month's out will breed.
Parent
And we can't raise the minimum wage, either, because the jobs these people are doing aren't worth more money.
So, basically, the thinking just seems to be "Eat Sh!t and Die, but can you super-size my #6 first?" Parent
"WASHINGTON -- Violent crime in the United States rose for the second year in a row, a government report said Thursday, indicating that the nation's two-decade decline in crime has ended.
The 2012 National Crime Victimization Survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 26 of every 1,000 people experienced violent crime, a 15% increase in how many people reported being victims of rape, robbery or assault. Property crime -- burglary, theft and car theft -- rose 12%."
New York police and retailers Macy's Inc and Barneys New York Inc traded blame on Tuesday over complaints by black customers who were stopped by police after making luxury purchases, in a case that has roiled civil rights leaders. [snip] Following a meeting in Harlem with New York civil rights leader Al Sharpton, Barneys Chief Executive Officer Mark Lee likewise said his employees had no part in two incidents at his stores. "We believe that no Barneys employees were involved in those incidents," Lee said. "No one from Barneys brought them to the attention of our internal security and no one from Barneys reached out to external authorities." Likewise, a Macy's spokeswoman denied that store staff had any role in two incidents at the company's Herald Square flagship. In one of those incidents, actor Rob Brown of HBO's "Treme" in June was paraded through the store in handcuffs after purchasing a $1,350 gold Movado watch for his mother, according to the Daily News. "This was an operation of the New York City Police Department," Macy's spokeswoman Elina Kazan said in a statement. NYPD chief spokesman John McCarthy countered those claims, saying that in both Barneys' incidents and the case involving Brown at Macy's, officers were acting on information provided by store security. "In both instances, the NYPD were conducting unrelated investigations" in the store, McCarthy said.
[snip]
Following a meeting in Harlem with New York civil rights leader Al Sharpton, Barneys Chief Executive Officer Mark Lee likewise said his employees had no part in two incidents at his stores.
"We believe that no Barneys employees were involved in those incidents," Lee said. "No one from Barneys brought them to the attention of our internal security and no one from Barneys reached out to external authorities."
Likewise, a Macy's spokeswoman denied that store staff had any role in two incidents at the company's Herald Square flagship. In one of those incidents, actor Rob Brown of HBO's "Treme" in June was paraded through the store in handcuffs after purchasing a $1,350 gold Movado watch for his mother, according to the Daily News.
"This was an operation of the New York City Police Department," Macy's spokeswoman Elina Kazan said in a statement.
NYPD chief spokesman John McCarthy countered those claims, saying that in both Barneys' incidents and the case involving Brown at Macy's, officers were acting on information provided by store security.
"In both instances, the NYPD were conducting unrelated investigations" in the store, McCarthy said.
So...the stores say they weren't behind it, the cops were. The cops say just the opposite.
Meanwhile, at least four people have experienced some combination of being stopped, surrounded, handcuffed and/or frog-marched through these stores because, what, they spent too much money?
I'd like to say, "un-fking-believable," but sadly, it's more believable than it ever should be.
Time will tell.
When you dig into his statements, his objections to the policy don't seem as strong as they initially appear. Parent
But on the brightside, Bloomberg's outty very soon, with Kelly likely right behind him. That's something to celebrate. I, for one, am ready for some devils I don't really know. Parent
And, never again, will I have to explain why I call him Prince Tuesday. Parent
Volume 171 Volume 170
My beautiful wife has been out of town for a week, but today she returns home. I am a happy man, indeed. Just not right when she's gone.
Peace.
Mesin Jahit
At campaign rallies and other recent appearances, both Clintons have called for soothing partisan tensions and have espoused a vision of governing by compromise. Barnstorming Virginia this week with longtime friend and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, Bill Clinton repeatedly assailed ideological politics on both sides of the aisle.
Oh goody. More compromise. Because we haven't had enough of that. How will she achieve this? She's going to be a different kind of change agent.
In the 2008 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton dismissed Obama's message of post-partisanship as woefully naive. But since stepping down as Obama's secretary of state earlier this year, she has adopted a similar theme, repeatedly berating lawmakers for choosing "scorched earth over common ground." "We are careening from crisis to crisis instead of having a plan, bringing people to that plan, focusing on common-sense solutions and being relentless in driving toward them," Clinton said last week during at a Center for American Progress gala.
"We are careening from crisis to crisis instead of having a plan, bringing people to that plan, focusing on common-sense solutions and being relentless in driving toward them," Clinton said last week during at a Center for American Progress gala.
"Common-sense solutions." Wait...what? This is change? Same old, same old campaign sloganeering, as far as I can tell.
Must we endure the exact same bullsh!t every four years? Is there no Democrat worth voting for?
Looks like I'll be voting for an independent candidate in 2016, just like I did in 2012 (and just like I did in 1996, after Bill Clinton decided to "end welfare as we know it.")