home

Wednesday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 06:23:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Time for an open thread. All topics welcome.

< Pistorius Trial: Crime Scene Evidence Problems | DOJ Endorses Guideline Reduction in Federal Drug Cases >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 178 comments (178 topical)
    Single Payer Hearing In Congress (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 11:38:08 PM EST
    International Health Care Models
    Health care professionals and analysts from Taiwan, Canada, Denmark, and France testified on single payer health care systems in their countries. The hearing focused on lessons the U.S. can take from those systems.

    Testimony today Chaired by Bernie Sanders and Richard Burr

    More here

    Maybe Sanders does plan to Pres. run from the (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:09:12 AM EST
    left.

    Parent
    Even if he doesn't run, I would be (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:04:05 AM EST
    happy if he serves to apply pressure from the left on whoever does run.  Likewise, Elizabeth Warren should feel free to hop on the applying-pressure-from-the-left bandwagon, as well.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#10)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:45:40 AM EST
    would be interesting.

    Parent
    Very unlikely (none / 0) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:57:24 AM EST
    Bernie is neither as bombastic or as clueless as Ralph Nader...although an independent run by Bernie would likely be the only possible way to prevent a Hillary presidency should she choose to run.

    Parent
    Ugh. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:35:46 AM EST
    Calling Nader "bombastic and clueless" is truly bombastic and clueless.

    Parent
    And yet (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:45:43 AM EST
    You were discouraged when Gore lost Florida. No Nader, no Bush, but you oftentimes get lost in the weeds of your own thoughts so it's not surprising that you think Bernie Sanders running and garnering 3% of the vote from the left would be a good thing.

    Parent
    I think the term used was "interesting," (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:04:01 AM EST
    which can mean "good," but it can also mean..."interesting."

    Just my opinion, but the Democratic Party desperately needs someone to push from the left - even if he or she isn't formally running - who can put populist positions out there and push Democrats in that direction, who can encourage the abandoning of the tactic of giving ground in advance in the interest of bipartisanhip that the other side just isn't interested in.  We need someone to call BS on the constant refrain of "we don't have the votes" and start getting the issues out on the table for discussion anyway.  We need someone who can push the party to be the Little Engine that Could, rather than the Little Engine that Can't Bother.

    Is Bernie Sanders that person?  I don't know.  I don't think we need to know if he's that person, as long as he's out there making the effort to push from the left.  And if others, like Elizabeth Warren, want to add their voices to his, even better.

    Parent

    Speaking of (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    "interesting"...

    It's "interesting" that on this site, the name of which invokes the "Left", a call for a leftist voice in a coming election is so summarily derided by some of the people posting here.

    Parent

    It's always a good thing... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:56:41 AM EST
    to cast a vote that isn't draped in shame and embarassment and self-loathing.  Run Bernie Run!

    Parent
    Nader isn't why Gore "lost" Florida (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    I thought most people knew that by now.

    Parent
    Relative to problems with MD exchange: (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:41:57 AM EST
    this one's for you, squeaky, from this morning's Baltimore Sun, a letter to the editor:

    I am writing to point out the inefficiencies in the Maryland Health Exchange's process for handling health insurance applications through the Affordable Care Act. My husband and I started applying for health insurance in October 2013. It is now March 2014, and we still do not have health insurance. We have been in repeated contact with the health exchange, the governor's health reform office, and with Del. Shane Pendergrass' office to try and resolve this. Carefirst received an application for my husband, but it had an error so they could not accept it. They never did get one for me. They then proceeded to tell me they could not investigate this further. The health exchange has been unresponsive to our queries. The governor's health reform office was initially helpful, but they have not responded to recent emails of mine.

    Our application has fallen through the cracks, and we are frustrated by all of this. I am job hunting and have not worked since June 2013, and my husband works freelance, so he does not get health insurance. It is vital that we have health insurance. I am also sure that I speak on behalf of other Marylanders who are struggling with the health exchange to obtain insurance.

    Jill K. Porco, Savage

    I thought you would want to add to your body of knowledge.

    [oh, and just so you know, "Savage" is a town, and not a description of the letter-writer]

    So in other words... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:11:13 PM EST
    ...they've got the same insurance they'd have if the Republicans had their way.

    Parent
    OK (4.25 / 4) (#22)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    The interesting thing is that you and your five star supporter lentinel appear to take pleasure in the failure of MD's ACA, as if it is some sort of victory justifying your scorn.

    You have a big following across the aisle on that one. Here is what Bernie Sanders has to say to you and your friends:

    "Republicans have nothing to say, all they can do is play the anti-Obamacare card and hope it fails. And they're going to lose on that."....

    But then again, you may consider Sanders a sell-out..

    "They have rooted obviously from the beginning for this program to fail. What we're seeing in various states, you mentioned California, Kentucky, New York state, what we're beginning to see at the federal level is that this program can work.....

    Sen. Sanders was echoing what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this summer about Obamacare being the first step towards a single payer system. Republicans don't have anything productive to offer on healthcare.



    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    Instead of supporting the coming online of a functional system that puts us all back into the voting booth again too, and leads to us no longer being easily pitted against each other in a race to the bottom

    Parent
    HUGE assumption (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:46:32 AM EST
    ...the coming online of a functional system.

    Could also be the online of a highly (even more so) disfunctional system that creates more headaches and doesn't really allow for more and better care.

    Parent

    We all have skin in this game (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:49:16 AM EST
    So it can only go two ways now, either total failure or it becomes functional.

    Voting booth, voting booth, voting booth

    You don't like what you have?  It really pi$$e$ you off? Maybe you'll vote.

    Parent

    I always vote (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:13:15 AM EST


    Parent
    The only way we can fight (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:18:44 AM EST
    All the big money bleeding our healthcare systems is if we all have to care.

    I'm glad you always vote.  Voter turnout though in the U.S.is pretty shameful, and all of us being easily pitted against each other has caused many to vote against their best interests.

    Healthcare will change that for the sake of healthcare.  I see it already changing some individuals around me, and I live in a hell state.

    Parent

    All Anne did was quote a letter (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by dk on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    to the editor.

    You're the one who opined that the ACA has "problems and failures" (in a comment from the last open thread).  Why do you hate Obama?

    Parent

    Kindly stop attributing to me thoughts, (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    feelings and opinions I don't have; there's a slim chance that if you could do that, we might actually be able to have a constructive conversation.

    I do not take any pleasure from the failure of the MD exchange.  Why?  Because those failures represent a lot of people who want and need insurance coverage and can't get it.  However I might have felt about the ACA when it became law, and whatever things I think it needs to be better, the bottom line is that people have waited a long time to get to the point where they could sign up for coverage - they've waited a long time to feel like they can finally see the doctor or get that medication they need, and I am not someone who would ever want my feelings about the system to get in the way of people being able to have access to it.

    My daughter had been insured through MD's high-risk plan.  When she was advised that it would be ending and she would have the option to purchase a plan on the exchange or directly through an insurance company, she embarked on that quest.  Since her husband and baby were insured privately on a separate plan that was also going to phase out, they decided they would look for a family plan.

    My daughter's efforts to do this on the exchange were nothing but frustrating - multiple attempts to create an account, never being able to get anyone to assist, etc.  So, she went to CareFirst.  They were better about getting them a plan, but they completely screwed up the payment such that for January and February - and so far this month - they effectively had no coverage.  Multiple calls to customer service, many many minutes on hold.  The good news is they do have the insurance, at least as of the last call she made to CareFirst.  I don't think she's completely sure, though, so time will tell.  I should mention that the problems were attributed to the deluge of applications and people calling for assistance, because the same people handling applications for CareFirst plans through the exchange were the same people dealing with the non-exchange applications.

    So, root for this whole thing to fail?  I don't think so, not when the health of my family is at stake.

    So, are we clear on this, finally?  Or will I have to continue to explain in different words, over and over, that I am not rooting for the ACA to fail?  You were the one making claims on the basis that you hadn't heard of anyone having a negative experience; the purpose of offering examples of those who have is not about rooting for failure, it's about rooting for accuracy.  You don't do yourself any favors when you keep insisting that those complaining are just Obama-haters.

    What actually worries me is that, if the ACA is going to be framed as a possible foundation for a move to single-payer, it's likely that if it did fail, it would just kill, once and for all, the chance of getting any kind of universal, single-payer system.  Why?  Because the ACA is viewed as a "government plan," and the howls will be - as they always are - "if the government can't make this work, imagine how fked up single-payer would be."

    You've made a lot of claims and assumptions while hectoring people that they don't know what they're talking about - and yet, when I told you that because MD has its own exchange we weren't permitted to look at or buy insurance on the federal exchange, you said you didn't know that.  Makes me wonder what else you don't know.

    Bernie Sanders is right that the Republicans have nothing, but you are wrong to think I align myself in any way with them or their agenda - I don't.  Has a Republican or two on occasion stated something about the ACA that has been true?  Yes, but that does not give you permission to make me one of them in philosophy, agenda or ideology.

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    I do not take any pleasure from the failure of the MD exchange.  Why?  Because those failures represent a lot of people who want and need insurance coverage and can't get it.

    Really? So why all the demagoguing?  I have never seen you mention anything good about ACA even when millions who have never had insurance are now fully insured? It is good and fine to fight in order to make the system better but you seem to expect things to be instantly perfect.

    In your state there was a big F'up in the rollout. The federal government is coming in to investigate why that was a problem.

    The intention was to provide full health care for everyone, and this has not worked out yet in your state. It is not ideological but a mistake that is being fixed. This is not policy...  or do you think that Obama is secretly punishing your state?

    The change is Huge, It should be more surprising that is has worked out relatively smoothly for the most part, no?

    IOW it seems like your plaints are about policy, not the superficial problems that have occurred because of switching to a massive new system.

    You were the one making claims on the basis that you hadn't heard of anyone having a negative experience...

    Never said that Anne..  What I said is that the people I have talked to have either had success with the ACA, or have not enrolled because they do not need to. Also, here at TL, I have not read much about people getting a worse deal from signing up for ACA than what they had previously.  Since, one or two have chimed in about it being worse for them.

    I have read tons of complaints, almost all of which are from those who want ACA to fail, for whatever reason. And of course I followed all the rants about how the rollout was bumpy to say the least. Seems to me that should not be a surprise.

    Has a Republican or two on occasion stated something about the ACA that has been true?  Yes, but that does not give you permission to make me one of them in philosophy, agenda or ideology.

    I did mention that you may belong to the group that believes that Bernie Sanders is a sell-out.

    Parent

    It's hard to see with your (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:33:49 PM EST
    eyes wide shut, harder still when they're open and you're just not bothering to read all of a comment.

    Or maybe you just don't understand how it is possible to be critical of elements of - in this case - the ACA, and also be glad people are deriving benefits from it.  It makes about as much sense to call me an Obama-hater, or liken me to a Republican as it would to say that a wife critical of her husband must hate men and marriage.

    The intention was not to provide health care for everyone, but to require everyone to have health insurance; these are not the same thing, and it is the conflation of the two that I have a problem with.  Will having insurance that is ACA-compliant entitle people to services they may not have had before?  Yes.  My grandson, for example, will get an annual, fully-covered eye and dental exam that he wouldn't have gotten before.  

    But what do you say to the people who have these new policies and find out the hard way that their little trip to the ER is going to cost them thousands of dollars because the hospital isn't in their network, or they were treated by doctors who weren't participating providers?  Or that they can't continue their cancer treatment where they were going before because that hospital isn't part of their network anymore?

    These are real problems, and they exist because in agreeing to fully cover the screenings and exams, and comply with all the coverage mandates, insurance companies decided to recoup some of that cost by restricting networks, futzing with cost-sharing and balance-billing.  These are things people haven't fully experienced because we're so early in the plan, but they exist.

    The complaints I've read are from people upset because they feel like they were sold something that isn't what it was advertised to be, or what they were led to believe they were getting.  Jesus Christ on a crutch, squeaky, people want health care.  Care.  If they're angry, it's because they either got it and it's costing them more than they were led to believe it would, or what they have now is preventing them from getting their care where they got it before.  Or they thought it would cost less, but after the dust settles, they realize they're paying more.  

    Yeah, there was that stupid woman complaining about her new plan who couldn't admit she was paying less - and sure, there are people like that - but I think for the most part, people just want care.  Or to know they can get care.  Or that they can afford the care they get.  

    What I'm rooting for is for people to have access to affordable care.  To the extent the ACA facilitates that, great; to the extent people are still being shut out of that benefit, for whatever reason, bad.

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    What I'm rooting for is for people to have access to affordable care.  To the extent the ACA facilitates that, great; to the extent people are still being shut out of that benefit, for whatever reason, bad.

    So for the millions who now have access to health care because of the ACA do you think that Obama did a good thing?

    Parent

    Do you hold Obama (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by dk on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    responsible for the failures and problems you asserted in the previous open thread?

    Parent
    Which Failures? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:10:35 PM EST
    Certainly he has to take responsibility for the federal rollout disasters, which he did. And, to put it into perspective, computer tech people have said that what happened was pretty normal considering the magnitude..

    And sure, let me know which failures you are talking about, and we can discuss who is responsible.

    I have no love for Obama, nor the Democrats in general. But I do think that the ACA is a great step. And yes, single payer would be my choice if I controlled the world (or the US).

    Parent

    Well, you're the one who (none / 0) (#79)
    by dk on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    asserted that the ACA has failures and problems, not me.  So I guess the better question is what do you see as the failures and problems.

    Parent
    Silliest comment award (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:23:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Why is it silly? Squeaky's been (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:59:29 PM EST
    haranguing us for days to be specific and provide examples to support our comments - why should he be held to some different standard?  He acknowledges there are failures and problems - well, what does he think they are?

    What does he think about narrow networks, about balance billing and cost-sharing?  One you get past the annual physical, then what?  Because I don't think everyone who gets a physical is going to be declared fit as a fiddle.  What if you get a screening and it turns out you need a biopsy or a series of tests, and you can't afford the co-pays and deductibles, and oh, gee, you can't go to the hospital 5 miles up the road on the bus line, you have to go to the one 30 miles away with no public transportation?

    Now, let's be fair: Obama didn't sit down and work out all of those details - those are insurance company-generated.  So, where's the regulation?  How come insurance companies won a big fight to be able to recharacterize non-medical expenses as medical so they could meet the medical loss ratio requirements?

    Something can't be fixed if people are unwilling to acknowledge what those problems are because they think doing so makes them disloyal.  This isn't about loyalty, it's about quality of life.  And it isn't a case of this person's spectacularly good experience makes up for or negates someone else's nightmare of an experience, it's about how do we make the bad better, who's responsible for bringing regulatory pressure to bear.  It's about how do we get the millions being left out into the fold.

    I am a voter.  But I don't expect to see on the ballot in November any specific questions I can vote on to fix what needs fixing.  And I'm guessing in large swaths of the country, the choices people have at the ballot box are someone who wants to kill the ACA and someone who wants not to kill it but just to eliminate any parts of it that actually help people.  That's not much of a choice, but millions of people who really are Obama-haters are going to end up voting for people who would just as soon they fell off the face of the earth than do anything to help government help them in any way.

    Parent

    What If? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    What if you can't get health insurance?

    What does he think about narrow networks, about balance billing and cost-sharing?  One you get past the annual physical, then what?  Because I don't think everyone who gets a physical is going to be declared fit as a fiddle.  What if you get a screening and it turns out you need a biopsy or a series of tests, and you can't afford the co-pays and deductibles, and oh, gee, you can't go to the hospital 5 miles up the road on the bus line, you have to go to the one 30 miles away with no public transportation?

    The question you seem to keep asking is how bad is the ACA compared to single payer where everyone gets the best doctor and it does not matter whether you are rich or poor..  

    I see the question as does the ACA improve the general population's health care options compared to the system we had prior to January 1 or not.

    That is what is on the table, imo. Not pie in the sky comparisons to what we could have.

    I see a big improvement, and time will tell, but I believe that the system will improve. We'll see.

    Parent

    No, that is not the question I'm asking. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:19:43 PM EST
    but I guess it's the one you want to answer.

    The questions were right there - they're those sentences with the question marks at the end.  Will you need wikipedia to get more information about that? Look, there's another one!

    Jesus.

    We built a new system on the foundation of the one that was rotten and crumbling; yes, the new kitchen is lovely and the view from the dining room is spectacular, it's great that we now have a way in from the garage and don't have to walk all the way around the house.  I guess we'll enjoy it until we don't.

    If it was going to be this wonderful, why'd Obama and Baucus make the desperate people wait so long?  How can something be a crisis if you find solutions and delay implementing them for four years?  Is this the phenomenon of delayed gratification?  I guess that's better than "you made me wait four years for this?"

    [OMG, the question marks!!! Remain calm.  Deep breaths and soon you'll erase those from your mind and imagine I said or asked something completely different.]

    I never expected or demanded perfection; I guess the problem is that I think the goal should have been about the care, and others decided the way to reach that goal, kinda, was for all of us to have insurance.  I see insurance, ultimately, as a barrier to care, and mandating care on one end was always going to mean rigging the system somewhere else in order to preserve the illusion that it was better and increase the bottom line.

    I guess it all depends on what your goals are.


    Parent

    Questions You are Asking (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:39:12 PM EST
    What does he think about narrow networks, about balance billing and cost-sharing?

    Narrow networks, compared to going to the emergency room for someone who did not have insurance prior to the ACA?  Or compared to an equivalent low cost plan, prior to ACA, that did not cover going to the nearest facility?

    Cost sharing according to Kaiser:

    Cost-sharing subsidies can substantially reduce the deductibles, copayments, coinsurance and total out-of-pocket spending limits for people with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($58,875 for a family of four in 2013). Those reductions could be an important consideration for lower-income consumers when choosing their coverage.....
    ..... a lot of insurers are going to narrower networks as a way to keep costs down," says Christine Monahan, a senior health policy analyst at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms. "If you go out of network, you could be subject to higher cost sharing and balance billing."

    But you must have something that makes cost sharing balanced billing and narrow networks worse than it was before ACA, no? If so please elaborate.

    In most plans before ACA if you went out of network you have to pay..  so not sure how this is worse.

    But compared to something we do not have on the table, single payer where you can go to any doctor, any hospital, regardless of whether you are rich or poor, it is worse.

    But as far as I know, even in single payer, rich people can go to doctors who are not part of the single payer system.

    Parent

    You are conjuring now (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    A foundation rotten and crumbling?  What part of it?  How?

    And not one good thing you see at this point?  Nothing?  It is happening now and all you can do is this?  It didn't happen soon enough, it didn't happen right, it didn't happen according to your specs.  But you really don't have specs.  You have nothing but an attitude of being inconvenienced.  

    I am accused of having no empathy, but I sure seem to require less out of ACA this very minute than you do Anne because I see that in the end it helps all of us...the most downtrodden.

    I don't see where your comments champion them.  Your comments tend to impart that you think we are better off without ACA.

    Anyone attempting to paint me as without empathy ought to be ashamed I think.  I am in this for a long haul, and even my care has gotten better and I already had healthcare coverage.  My goal is not a short term happiness though and quick convenience for myself, but a long term health for my whole nation.


    Parent

    The rotten and crumbling foundation (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:51:09 PM EST
    of the health insurance system that the ACA is claiming to reform, that foundation.  But, if you want to claim it wasn't broken, fine - that's not going to help the rest of your argument, though.

    I've provided multiple examples of elements of the ACA that are benefiting people - I've probably done it in almost every comment I've made here today.  I've been clear that I'm glad people desperate for care have a better chance of getting it.  And so on.  It's all there - others can see it and have commented on it, so I have no idea why the words are not visible to you.  Maybe you don't want to see them?  And there's nothing here today, or any other day, where I've advocated that we'd be better off without the ACA.

    Better off without insurance companies dreaming up new ways to keep more of our money?  Yes.  Better off ending the problem of geographic differences in the kinds of care that are covered?  Yes.

    Apparently, we want the same things.  I've said countless times, many of them in this thread, that it's unconscionable that we have so many people in this country going without basic care - and it's even worse that there are politicians at the state and federal level actively working to perpetuate that situation.  It boggles my mind.

    I am not the person who made any comments about your empathy.  I have no doubt that, given your situation, you are especially sensitive to the great needs out there that aren't being met, so you might want to direct you umbrage somewhere else.

    We're both mothers, both grandmothers.  I think neither one of us can imagine the kind of person who could look at a child and deny them care for political reasons.  So, if I wasn't clear before, let me say this one more time: it's a good thing that more people are able to get basic health care.  I am not rooting for the ACA to fail, because - as I also said today - if it fails it will doom any chance at moving closer to single-payer.

    Parent

    You have no specs for what is specifically (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:35:08 PM EST
    broken, therefore how could you come up with a solution?

    Parent
    Unanswered Question (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:45:30 PM EST
    Guess this one is too tough for Anne to touch:

    So for the millions who now have access to health care because of the ACA do you think that Obama did a good thing?


    Parent
    Anne, I went to pick up a prescription yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    At the Lyster pharmacy and on the wall was a nice sign letting me know that I would in some respects be receiving less benefits because of ACA.  Tricare Humana has pledged that I will only receive the ACA minimum because by God they are being forced.  And they can go ahead and throw their tantrum because I know how great they were before ACA and they sucked :)

    I am not here sobbing deliriously though because of a tantrum sign on the wall.  And the pharmacy used to turn the ticket machine off at 4:30 even though it technically could not close until 5:00.  Why did they change that?  Because when they get complaints they lose federal money now, when they get good reviews they can get extra funds.  That is something new.  I think I will give Obama credit for it today.  So, now the pharmacy really is open until 5:00.

    Many things are changing, and Humana can be upset that they lost their ability to deny us to some degree accesses because of ACA, and they can put up their scary placard and I will carry on.  Because it isn't just me in this fight all by my lonesome anymore.  I don't have to pray for a war so our healthcare coverage improves.  Obamacare is already putting subtle pressure on the existing Lyster Army clinic's subpare care because in the end Obamacare (which in Alabama is BCBS) probably costs less per military dependent and we can all probably receive proper care more efficiently under it.  Careful there GS employees, and put in an honest day's work.

    I hope it does the same for the VA system.  What does VA care cost us per soldier, could the private market do better for less money?  That's pressure.

    Are things perfect? NO, but I am on the road to better care already and a great big voting block too.

    I am also a voter, and when voters are upset about ACA you can garner our vote or our ire.  I see all of us becoming a very strong voting block.

    Parent

    Both Bloomberg and CNN/ORC polling (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    show significant uptick in support for the ACA.  From Bloomberg today: 64% want to retain ACA as is or with fixes/changes as needed.  From CNN/ORC: On the more general "support" or "not support" question, CNN/ORC specifies that support has ticked up again; and, more significantly, when support for the ACA includes the @12% who want to see change from the left/liberal persuasion, the number now constitutes a majority.

    The question about millions who may well appreciate the changes <as of last month> would seem to have a tentative answer of 4.2 million.  Others, such as WonkWire, note the incoming data shows continual upward movement as the ACA becomes an expected part of our overall culture.  BTW, one of the interesting questions referenced today has to do with the matter of how many individuals who were not previously insured through their employers have or would soon decide to go with an employer-offered policy rather than travel the Exchange.  The data points will be--to use that multi-faceted word--"interesting."

    Parent

    Who are these "millions"? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:58:30 PM EST


    Parent
    4.2 Millions (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    Since an open enrollment period started last fall, some 2.6 million Americans have chosen health plans through the federal exchange HealthCare.gov, while another 1.6 million have signed up through exchanges run by states. More than 80 percent of those who have selected plans are eligible for federal subsidies through the Affordable Care Act to reduce the cost of premiums.

    Time

    Parent

    80-85% of 4.2 Million (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    Aetna and Health Care Services Corp., two of the country's largest insurers, told POLITICO that through February, about 80 percent of their exchange customers had paid. Officials from WellPoint and Blue Shield of California said about 85 percent of subscribers had submitted premiums. A handful of other large- and medium-sized insurers told The New York Times last month that about four of five of their January customers had paid.

    Read more


    Parent

    Please stop being logical (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:39:04 PM EST


    Parent
    What I would say (none / 0) (#94)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:52:37 PM EST
    But what do you say to the people who have these new policies and find out the hard way that their little trip to the ER is going to cost them thousands of dollars because the hospital isn't in their network, or they were treated by doctors who weren't participating providers?  Or that they can't continue their cancer treatment where they were going before because that hospital isn't part of their network anymore?

    Be a better healthcare consumer?  RTFM?  As someone who deals w/numbers you should know statistics at a macro level paint a clearer picture than anecdotes a micro level.

    Not being callous, but the "belief" that one can only get the best care at X facility or doctor is what has contributed the most to the exorbitant cost of care.

    Ironically, it is because of this belief that single-payer was never an option. If people believed they could go anywhere and all docs were equal, there'd be more competition for patients and payments (be they gov't or private payments).  More competition usually means lower cost.

    Representatives in Congress (of both parties) would never have agreed to pass on all the costs of the existing system to taxpayers.  Was never an option.

    Parent

    How do you do this? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:14:04 PM EST
    Be a better healthcare consumer?

    When you are having a heart attack or have a car accident and are  unconscious? Do you have time or the ability to google your plan your area and see what hospitals you need to go to?

    Parent

    Emergency Room & Urgent Care (none / 0) (#110)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:27:58 PM EST
    those services do not fall under network requirement guidelines.

    Googling "Emergency Care ACA" as there are numerous insurers and plans you'll see the link below.  Don't take my word for it though - members should review their benefit booklets/coverage documentation for accurate information:

    Out-Of-Network Emergency Services

    Q15: Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) section 2719A generally provides, among other things, that if a group health plan or health insurance coverage provides any benefits for emergency services in an emergency department of a hospital, the plan or issuer must cover emergency services without regard to whether a particular health care provider is an in-network provider with respect to the services, and generally cannot impose any copayment or coinsurance that is greater than what would be imposed if services were provided in network. At the same time, the statute does not require plans or issuers to cover amounts that out-of-network providers may "balance bill". Accordingly, the interim final regulations under section 2719A set forth minimum payment standards in paragraph (b)(3) to ensure that a plan or issuer does not pay an unreasonably low amount to an out-of-network emergency service provider who, in turn, could simply balance bill the patient.

    Dept. of Labor Link

    Parent

    Further (none / 0) (#114)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    There are "prudent layperson" laws in many states that provide coverage for ER services even if the person's medical concerns turn out not be urgent. E.g. "I'm having a heart attack" and it turns out to be gas.

    Parent
    Hilarious (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    Since you have your choir.

    Parent
    Don't get your meaning (none / 0) (#117)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:38:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Next question (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:38:10 PM EST
    How do you do homework if doctor's don't list their prices?

    Parent
    That's a good question (none / 0) (#131)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:55:07 PM EST
    and that's why insurers have networks.  In addition, some insurers offer access to tools via member websites that let you perform comparisons of providers and their costs.

    You can always just ask the doctor also.  He's getting your money right?

    You should see what your plan offers via their website.

    Parent

    Yes, I did that (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    I did that when I had to get a new, more expansive plan with less coverage, since mine was canceled.  

    But not everyone is that savvy - what about them?

    Parent

    Did you find the info you needed? (none / 0) (#143)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:11:58 PM EST
    Those not savvy will do what they do now - call the number on the back of their card.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    I did it before I bought the plan - to make sure my doctors were still covered, my prescriptions were still covered, etc.  But most people are only going to call the number on the back of their card after their claim gets rejected - of course, then they will have to be put on hold and bounced around 14 menus before they may get to talk to a person.  And if the policyholder doesn't speak English as a first language, things could be more complicated.

    I know you work in the industry, but it is definitely not a user friendly product where people actually want to make things easy.

    Parent

    Those things (where they occur) (none / 0) (#152)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    can definitely be improved - no arguments from me on that.

    A good part of it is understanding what's what before you need the doctor - which goes to reading comprehension & critical thinking, which goes to education, which goes to socioeconomic background, and so on...

    Point being the root cause of the problem is very much deeper than simply having access to care.  Shouldn't be, but it is.

    Parent

    I get it now (none / 0) (#135)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:59:05 PM EST
    your choir comment was in response to perceived snark w/the heart attack comment?

    I'm good, but I'm not that good. :-)

    Parent

    Anne, you commenting (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    style and link choices when it comes to ACA kind of lean towards a certain pattern :)  Come on, it's true

    Parent
    You're quite right (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    Anne, you commenting (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:44:34 AM MDT

    style and link choices when it comes to ACA kind of lean towards a certain pattern :)  Come on, it's true

    The pattern is never mushy, but is, rather clear, with specificity regarding the parameters and scope of the comment. The pattern includes criticism based on either personal experience or documented issues. The pattern also includes appreciation for real, documented successes as well as anecdotal and undocumented success. Although I must say I'm rather surprised that you are willing to credit that. Kudos to you.

    It's just too bad that the pattern includes (apparently) too many words so that some people can pick a sentence or two to twist and mangle beyond all recognition in order to pick a fight.

    Parent

    Is that editorial asvice? (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:46:50 PM EST


    Parent
    What is asvice? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:50:37 PM EST


    Parent
    And it is always ACA criticism (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:20:01 PM EST
    Always anti-Obama too

    There is no good to be found in ACA or President Obama.  It is all or nothing, which for me is not really reality based, can't be reality based.

    Parent

    If you continue to make that assertion (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:07:26 PM EST
    And it is always ACA criticism (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:20:01 PM MDT

    Always anti-Obama too

    Then it's clear the problem must be that there are too many words for you in her comments. Because you are surely not reading what is there.

    Parent
    You're (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:35:57 PM EST
    free to post comments that praise Obama - if you are moved to do so.

    To me - Obama is not the problem. Just the latest symptom of a broken and corrupt political system.

    Parent

    Amen (none / 0) (#47)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:52:04 AM EST
    to that, Anne.

    Parent
    The Amen Corner (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    must be the jesus on a crutch line that brought in the choir

    In some Christian churches, the amen corner or amen section is any subset of the congregation likely to call out "Amen!" in response to points in a preacher's sermon.[citation needed] Metaphorically, the term can refer to any group of heartfelt traditionalists or supporters of an authority figure.


    Parent
    It's not a cabal though (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:51:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Shush! (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    it is secret..  

    Parent
    Aww...isn't that sweet. You have a new friend (none / 0) (#69)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    and 5 star supporter.

    Parent
    I'll (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    help you out.

    It is a colloquial way of saying, "Well said".

    Parent

    Thanks For the Help (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:59:00 PM EST
    But I have heard the term used in varied settings. It is almost always used this way (religious or not)

    Metaphorically, the term can refer to any group of heartfelt traditionalists or supporters of an authority figure.

    And after the jesus on crutch part of the sermon, I heard a choir singing in the background..  funny, no?

    Parent

    Thanks for the explanation. (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:17:49 PM EST
    IOW, only you get to decide how a word is meant or used. Your experiences trump all.

    I don't get why you are so hung up on who uprates or agrees with Anne. Why is that such an issue for you?
    You don't seem to mind Christinep, Oculus, and MT always agreeing/uprating you. Although, the latter 2 seem to have become fans only now that they have met you.

    Maybe, you need to focus more on what is being said, rather than who seem to be in agreement.

    Parent

    Not Me (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    Wikipedia. Considering that TL is not a church, I took the second meaning which is metaphorical.

    But, my experience in hearing the term, corroborates wiki entry.

    Parent

    Methinks (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    that you would rather discuss anything but content today.

    Parent
    Content? (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    What content would you like to discuss, lentiinel?

    Parent
    I was (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:20:09 PM EST
    saying that I agreed with Anne, and that I thought that her post was excellent.

    I infer from your diversion into etymology that you did not agree with her.

    Parent

    Nothing to do with Anne's Comment (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:31:16 PM EST
    Just commenting on the amen from the choir.  I found it humorous, maybe even unintentional irony.

    Parent
    Made me check wiki. Different theories of the (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:13:20 PM EST
    origin of the word. Maybe an acronym. Maybe secret interpretations in Judaism.  link

    Parent
    An Amen from me too. (none / 0) (#48)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    Sorry, I cannot rate your comment a 5.
    For the past few days I have been reading TL from my Ipad only and for some reason my ratings don't show up. I don't know what's going on!

    Parent
    ha! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:17:32 PM EST
    Do you want me to rate it for you? :)

    Parent
    It would be pretty funny if you could. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    I know many here don't care for the rating system.
    But, I see it differently.
    If we were having a conversation face to face, even if I did not say a word, you would know from my facial expressions and body language how I feel about what you said. I see a rating system as a substitute for that.
    It is my way of saying I hear/appreciate/agree with/LOL at what you said.

    Parent
    The Oregon Exchange (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    has also been an unmitigated disaster. But God forbid people should point out this stuff.

    Parent
    Any Successes? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:56:39 PM EST
    We all know about the problems with the roll out..  the GOP is working it 24/7.

    Have not heard about any successes regarding the ACA from you though. If I missed them please let me know what I missed.

    Parent

    The WA Exchange is considered one of the best (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    in the nation, next to Connecticut's. But I was pointing out that Oregon's, Cover Live, is considered a total disaster. Hardly any Oregonians were able to get covered under it in time for the December deadline, and the federal government is angry and investigating what went wrong, because Oregon will fall very short of its goal for the March deadline. But if, instead of attacking blindly, you had taken the time to actually read the article I posted in the previous comment, some of your snarky questions would have been answered.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:55:00 PM EST
    So what does that have to do with the ACA?

    Problems with rollout, yes, but a failure of ACA no..  It would seem to logically follow that once the computer glitches are ironed out, and the site is up and running as intended Oregon will have similar enrollment to Washington, no?

    Parent

    I think things can be mitigated (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:57:19 PM EST


    Parent
    But not before the March 31 deadline (none / 0) (#71)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:06:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Then after :) (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:09:01 PM EST
    All the way into the future, which will always require new and improved mitigating.

    Parent
    whoosh! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:17:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I am sure you would be just as sanguine (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    if your family had to go without insurance for a few months. And, you would be quite happy to hear some one tell you "if not now, then sometime soon".

    Parent
    I went a couple of years without (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    Insurance coverage when I was a single mom.  I could only afford to cover my child.  You are trying to scare the wrong person here :)

    I battled horrible migraines too, but dated the stepson of a cardiac surgeon in Boston who was friends with a neurologist in Billings MT who saw me for a pittance and loaded me with samples so...whew!

    Yup, wrong person here

    Parent

    I am not trying to scare you, I am asking where (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    is your empathy.
    For some reason, I believed all the posts here about the struggles you have had with your insurance and getting care for your son, would translate into not wishing that on your worst enemy.
    I was not expecting a blithe, "don't worry, they'll get insurance someday".

    Oh well, time for those who don't have insurance to start dating doctors. Problem solved!

    Parent

    Can't the people interested in purchasing (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    go directly to the insurers in that state?

    I thought the exchange was merely a vehicle-by-which?

    Parent

    If you are low income, (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    you can only get government help with paying for your insurance if you go through the exchange.  If you purchase directly from the insurance companies, you cannot get the government health insurance subsidy.
    If you are higher income and thus do not qualify for a subsidy, then yes, you can certainly shop around and buy directly from the insurers.

    Parent
    So, in other words, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    you got lucky. You knew people. You dated someone with contacts in the medical field. Do you assume that most people without coverage have the social network you had?

    Parent
    You got that out of my comment? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    I had a migraine beyond 30 days before "my contacts" contributed anything to the crisis.  Nobody should have to suffer like that.

    Parent
    I can't speak for shoephone (none / 0) (#155)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    but I got that out your comment. Right here:
    I battled horrible migraines too, but dated the stepson of a cardiac surgeon in Boston who was friends with a neurologist in Billings MT who saw me for a pittance and loaded me with samples so...whew!
    Emphasis mine. I wish I had known the stepchild of a cardiac surgeon who was friends with a neurologist when I was having migraines. Even 30 days into one.

    Since I didn't, I can only say that I am intensely grateful for the fact that I haven't had a migraine in about 10 years. And I have no idea why.

    But I was glad to see the empathy demonstrated here:

    Nobody should have to suffer like that.


    Parent
    Attempting to portray me as someone (none / 0) (#181)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:32:54 PM EST
    Who has no empathy is a swiftboating. I am not able to have the same empathy for someone who feels inconvenienced by ACA compared to someone who had no insurance coverage and could not receive the treatment they needed prior to ACA and now does have insurance coverage and can now receive needed treatments.

    And once again we are all in this together now instead of being politically pitted against one another.  We can improve healthcare for everyone via ACA, instead of empowering scarcity. Which is what superior care for only elites while some individuals have nothing empowers and enables.

    I got ripped and gutted years ago by a woman online who said that I was fine empowering killing babies so my disabled child could have healthcare.  It wasn't why our family served, but aren't you even remotely grateful that with the infrastructure coming our way, people won't have to choose cannon fodder for family health reasons?  Some Neo-Con can't stock a giant army of people trying to escape a horrible suffering for one family member?

    It seems like you work so hard to find not one good thing coming to us via ACA, while I can find so many.  And I don't expect any fight to be over at this point, I expect a fight from here but it is one that I stand a chance of winning now.

    Parent

    I know what all those words mean (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:21:09 PM EST
    But together? Who knows. I can find absolutely no logical connection to anything I've said.

    If, however, you are engaged in a fight it's always better to be in a position where you have a chance of winning, so... I'm happy for you on that score?

    Parent

    Ditto. (none / 0) (#192)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:36:09 PM EST
    I read the comment and wondered if I needed the Esperanza dictionary.

    Parent
    Do you mean (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:50:54 PM EST
    Esperanto, perhaps?  My great-uncle Lou, a New York high school principal, was a great promoter of that noble idea, I'm told.

    Parent
    Link (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    Oh, should have checked the link first..  the article you linked to is all about Oracle, nor so much failure of ACA..  

    Oregon's health care enrollment website has been lambasted for not functioning fully. But new numbers from the feds show Oregon has done better than some other states when it comes to enrollment.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released numbers for all states for the first three months of open enrollment under the Affordable Care Act.

    By late December, Oregon had enrolled about 18,000 people via the website, with the help of state navigators. That's more than 23 other states for the same time period. Some states are enrolling people through the federal government's website.

    The acting director of Cover Oregon, Bruce Goldberg acknowledges there are still problems with Oregon's site, "Some of technology is working but some isn't. We're not as smooth as we'd like to be. This I think shows that we're still getting people enrolled."

    It's still not clear that the website will be fully functional by the time the enrollment window closes, March 31t.

    link

    Parent

    Dunno... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:43:30 AM EST
    In two days, a "Russian-supported referendum" in Crimea will decide on whether or not to secede from the Ukraine.

    President Obama said the world would "completely reject" what he called a "slapdash election..."

    My mind went to the election of 2000 here in the US of A.

    Talk about "slapdash"!

    More like a coup d'etat - involving the total corruption of the election process, the media and the Supreme Court. Hard to top that one.

    But the world did not "completely reject" this disgrace of an "election". It accepted it as a fait accompli. I suspect that it will do the same with the results of this referendum - bluster and bombast aside.

    On a related note: I well remember the events surrounding the selection of W. in 2000. In spite of myself, I felt a combination of relief and euphoria when Gore was announced the victor in Florida - only to have those results overturned within the hour. The shenanigans - Katherine Harris, the limp response by Lieberman and Gore, the flaccid media, the dreck of a Supreme Court.

    And as soon as he was declared victor - Bush began an active process of taking over the government. Everything. He was King. Sovereign monarch. The "Decider". He intimidated everyone. Everyone fell in line.

    Contrast that, if you will, with the response of the Democrats upon winning decisively in 2008.
    You remember that they won the Presidency, and control of both houses of Congress.

    So what do they do?
    Let me quote that bag of feathers, Harry Reid on election night:

    "This is a mandate to get along, to get something done ... this is not a mandate for a political party or an ideology."

    Yeah. Right.

    When Bush was handed the presidency with the slimmest of margins and the transparent partisan corruption of the Supreme Court, it was treated as one hell of a mandate.

    When the Democrats won across the board, they declared it not a mandate for them or their ideology - but rather a mandate to "get along" with the republicans and their ideology.

    So, for lo these many years, we've been "getting along" - limping along, going nowhere, keeping or appointing relics of the Bush era to positions of power and blurring the line between democrats and republicans.

    Is this satire? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:20:40 AM EST
    The 2000 election was an example of democracy.

    You don't like the outcome but the bottom line is the country accepted it along with the man who lost and the rest of his fellow democrats.

    To compare an election following the invasion by a foreign power to an election that followed the rules of our constitution only shows your blind partisanship.

    Al Gore was the "wronged"party here.  And he wasn't wronged in any real sense.  He was able to move on gracefully.  Might be time for you to do the same.

    Parent

    You are right (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:33:37 AM EST
    We need to move on.  However, the fact remains that Al Gore still got 540,000 more people to vote for him than George Bush, yet he lost.  Is that really "democracy"?

    Yes, it's because we have the Electoral College and all kinds of arguments can be made for or against keeping that as our way of electing presidents.  There's also an argument to be made that if not for the Electoral College, George Bush still could have won, based on where money and advertising were done (instead of focusing on those electoral-rich states).

    It's 14 years past and it is time to let it go.  But can you understand why people are still upset about it?  In a democracy, (or rather, a democratic republic like we live in), people come to expect that in our elections, the majority wins.  It was not so in this case.  Can you say for certain if the situation were reversed - If Al Gore was granted the presidency based on a ruling by the Supreme Court (a ruling, BTW, which has no precedential value for future cases), even though he had a minority of the votes - can you say that you would just let it lie and move on?

    Parent

    Totally understand (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    I had to get over the fact that our media basically campaigned for Obama over a more qualified Hillary and then McCain.  

    Time moves on and so should we.

    But to compare the 2000 election to Putin is completely ridiculous.

    Parent

    Who (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    compared anything to Putin?

    As for "moving on" - we're never going to move on until we acknowledge the reality of what transpired in 2000 and own up to it.

    In your view, the media campaigned for Obama over Hillary.

    The media has no business campaigning for anyone.
    If you choose to "move on" - you are actually going to stay still -because the media is going to do it again and again until they are seriously challenged and confronted.

    Parent

    Move on? Never. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:54:11 AM EST
    What happened in 2000 was beyond tragedy.    

    Parent
    Simply (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    speaking, the 2000 election was an example of the deliberate thwarting of democracy by a right wing cabal.

    And, if you would read a bit more carefully, I did not compare the coup d'etat in the US to an invasion by a foreign power - although there are similarities...

    I simply mentioned that to suggest that the world would "reject" the results of the referendum in Crimea is a wee bit naive.

    An example is how readily the world accepted the election of W. in 2000. Won by a man who got fewer popular votes than his opponent - aided by an admittedly partisan supreme court that intervened and stopped the counting of votes.

    If the election of 2000 is in your view an election that "followed the rules of our constitution", well --- we have a strong difference of opinion.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:24:44 AM EST
    What is with the need to drag up supposed wrongs by America to silence criticism of other Nations?

    America is far from perfect but that does not excuse the wrongs committed around the world.  

    Putin invaded another country.  If you're ok with that just say so.  No need to drag up history to cover for your views.

    If you don't support Putin what is your point?

    Parent

    My point (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    was, as I said, that Mr. Obama said, in reference to the referendum in Crimea, that the world would "completely reject" what he called a "slapdash election".

    I disagreed - and used as an example how the world, and the US, accepted the results of one of the most corrupt "slapdash" elections in history - our own in 2000.

    Nothing to do with "supporting Putin".

    Whew!

    Parent

    If you don't like your ACA premium (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:54:42 AM EST
    Cancel your cable.

    Obama needs to work on his off the cuff comments.

    This (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:34:45 PM EST
    comment by Obama - telling people living on the line that they could afford the premiums if they would just give up their cable or cellphone - reminds me of the image the elitists used to throw around - depicting people dependent on food stamps as "welfare queens".

    Parent
    Hot Air? (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:18:10 PM EST
    Obama: Many people when they go on the website, or they make a call, or they go to the clinic, they may be eligible for Medicaid -- they just don't know it. In which case they may be able to get health insurance for free or very low costs.

    [...]

    And frankly, there are a few states, like Texas or Florida, that have not expanded Medicaid the way the law allows. Those people should be able to qualify for Medicaid under the federal rules but the states have refused to expand it for political reasons.

    Hmmmm...  

    and there is this:

    "For Anna Ray and Albert Davis of Houston, this was the first time they are getting covered with health insurance - and they're both getting a great deal.
    Anna is a 26 year-old part-time English teacher, who is hoping to find a fulltime job.  Before the Affordable Care Act, it would have been very hard for Anna to be able to afford coverage on the individual market.  Texans had few if any real choice, and even fewer choices that were actually affordable. Anna has a great story about how, because of the Marketplace - and with the help of financial assistance available through the new law - she was able to get covered on a Silver plan for only $122 a month
    .

    Wonder what plan the spanish speaking fellow had that forced him to pay $320/month..  

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 301 (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    They've invested in suffering. (link)

    v. 300
    v. 299
    v. 298

    Peace out, my friends.

    please re-read that article (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:37:14 PM EST


    You mean this part? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    The new report does not show how many people have paid premiums, as they generally must to activate coverage. Nor does it show if many of those selecting health plans were previously uninsured, or how many signed up for a plan, then canceled it and chose another. Officials said they did not have reliable data on the race or ethnic origin of people signing up.

    Insurers say that roughly one in five people who signed up for coverage failed to pay January premiums. And some of those who paid and received services in January failed to pay premiums for February, putting their coverage at risk.

    You might also want to re-read the article you posted:

    A White House official said the administration can't provide the more precise enrollment total because the data it receives from insurers is incomplete -- it comes from only plans that are covering people who are getting federal subsidies to buy insurance. Those paying full price for their coverage are not included, the official said.

    (Probably because that number is very low, which would substantially bring down the claim of "8-85%")

    So, basically, like the WH, you just pointed out that you have no real idea how many people have actually paid for premiums.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Parent

    JB, please re-read that article (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    if roughly 1 in 5 failed to pay, what did the other 4 do?

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    I read it wrong.

    However, this is coming from "industry insiders" and as I pointed out from your article - that doesn't account for all the people who have chosen plans who have to pay the full amount.  And considering that this would be excellent news, one would think this would be trumpeted and put in bold on all the Obama supporting media - NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, DailyKos, HuffPo, Whitehouse.gov.

    But it's not.  Which means they don't trust the numbers given by Aetna executives, since every other story to date has shown the opposite.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    It's like I never left
    So, so true. Would the world (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    take note if TL had no open threads?

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#165)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:34:38 PM EST
    world would definitely take note.

    It would stop in its tracks - and we would all float off the planet.

    Parent

    Maybe you'd like to sneak out again ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:52:18 PM EST
    ... before anyone else notices that you're here. ;-D

    Howzit, Cap'n! Hope you're doing well.

    Parent

    So the burning question is (none / 0) (#149)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:18:30 PM EST
    Does the semicolon on your signature emoticon represent tears as squeaky thinks? Or does it represent a wink as most other people think (in which case an apostrophe represents a tear)?

    Because if I've misread you all this time, I should like to not make that mistake in the future.

    Parent

    I wondered that too (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    Since that emoticon is generally accepted as a wink with a wide smile.

    Don't know where the idea of crying came from...

    Parent

    Another burning (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:24:54 PM EST
    question. Why does Donald sometimes sign off w"aloha" and sometimes not?.

    Parent
    Hi Don and Oc and whoever (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    I am very sad. My 21" Polypterus passed away.  He was 7. As if that was not bad enough he was lingering so I called my fish answer man and he told me I had to help him along  he suggested a hammer. I agonized over several double vodkas and called a friend for moral support. We decided chopping would be more humane and possibly less horrible .  So I got my biggest heaviest butcher knife and took him out to the back porch and wound up. One whack didn't do it and uttered a mournful sound I will take to my grave. The second whack did it and now Cleatus is in a better place.  If consider the trash can a better place.  But at least he is not suffering.  I am on my way to getting very drunk.

    Other that that things are great I guess

    Parent

    I'm sorry for your grief (none / 0) (#171)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:57:08 PM EST
    Your description of the mournful sound made my stomach clench with a kind of sorrow. One doesn't think of fish as making sounds, you know?

    Anyway, offering sympathy to you both: fish and fish killer.

    Parent

    OMG, are you kidding me? (none / 0) (#172)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    Putting Cleatus in the freezer might have been a less brutal way of dispatching him.

    Parent
    I suggested that to the fish guy (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:04:55 PM EST
    He insisted that he most humane thing was quick. I can't imagine being taken out of tropical water and allowed to freeze to death would have been easier for anyone but me.  

    But I considered it.  I also could not let him suffocate because he has lungs.  

    Anyway thanks for the sympathy.   The sound   Yeah
    I was totally not ready for the sound.

    Parent

    Freezing is not the best method but I just (none / 0) (#179)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:21:07 PM EST
    can't imagine having to do what you did. I also forgot to say that before either option, it helps to put them in a separate tank or bucket of water and add a few drops of clove oil. The clove oil is supposed to act as a sedative/anesthetic.

    I am sorry you had to go through this.

    Parent

    I've been haunted by (none / 0) (#205)
    by sj on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 11:12:19 AM EST
    what you and Cleatus went through yesterday. I can't imagine how I would feel if I had to do the deed myself for one of my animal friends.

    I hope getting very drunk helped. Peace to you Capt

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    is doing his own failing.

    Nobody needs to root for it.
    Nobody is rooting for it.
    We're trying to survive in a horrible economy.

    In this case, the snafus are directly due to his instantaneous caves to the hospital and insurance lobbies.

    Take a look at this clip of Obama - linked to above by Slado.

    If Obama has to resort to language like this to sell this mess as lemonade...

    Right Wing Sites are your Friend (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    Of course the Hot Air (the leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary covering the Obama administration, the gun control debate, politics, media, culture), video was edited to make Obama look worse, and the link to National Center for Public Policy Research spinning the ACA to show it is as much as a hoax as global warming:

    The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a self-described conservative think tank in the United States....

    NCPPR is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, whose object is described as "dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis"



    Parent
    He said (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:47:49 PM EST
    what he said.

    If you agree with it, so be it.

    Parent

    At the risk of public approbation, there is (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:52:16 PM EST
    some merit in the President's suggestion.  Cable and smart phones are a choice.  Should these choices prevail over health care coverage?  Or are health care, cable, and phone plans all "rights" the federal government should provide to all.

    Parent
    He is (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    painting an elitist caricature.

    The person said that on his income of $36,000 a year, he couldn't afford to pay for the mandated insurance.

    Obama replies that he should give up his cable or cellphone.

    He is painting the image of the poor - and the plight of people who are just managing to survive - as one of one in which the person in such circumstances could afford to pay for the mandated insurance if only they weren't so extravagant.

    He might have proposed that the predatory phone and cable companies stop gouging their customers.

    But he didn't.

    He blames the victim.

    Parent

    Hypothetical: assume a family of four with a bgro (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    has cable and cell phone contract but balks at purchasing subsidized medical insurance under the ACA, should the federal taxpayer subsidize more of the family's medical insurance premium?

    Parent
    Here's a hypothetical for you (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:07:23 PM EST
    If you were raising your family today, would you feel safe without access to phone service? Is it right to deprive a family of phone service? Is that a better trade-off than health insurance (note: "insurance", because health care is not guaranteed)? Which is the greater necessity in daily life?

    As for cable: maybe. I understand library internet services are better than they used to be so I expect school age children could mostly get by using the library. Because make no mistake: search capabilities provided by internet access is, I am told by my friends who are parents, required if the student wants a better than marginal grade.

    What is this investment in making the poor even poorer and then somehow scapegoating them for being poor. As if it's just a matter of bad choices.

    Parent

    I was thinking cable TV not Internet (none / 0) (#177)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    connection. Although the libraries here are well-connected with many monitors and many people using them. And of course there are landlines, phones, and smart phones.

    Parent
    Okay, I see (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:05:30 PM EST
    I read that wrong and misunderstood. But if I didn't have cable TV my internet access would cost twice what it presently does. I need the "triple play" to make any of the services "affordable". So there is that.

    My landline costs 50% more now than it did 7 years ago when I first moved to Baltimore and that is still less than it would cost if I dropped out of the triple play. Only $19 less per month than my cell phone. Moreover, it doesn't serve me when I am not at home.

    Any other way you want to kick 'em when they're down?

    Parent

    My library has time limits (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:22:52 PM EST
    for computer use and so many people use the computers, you can't just walk in to use one. And yes, folks are watching TV shows on them along with everything else.

    Think of the people who are using their computers to generate income, or search for work. The library is great, but limited for their purposes.

    Parent

    I don't have cable TV. Just Internet. (none / 0) (#189)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:26:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Ditto. (none / 0) (#196)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:07:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Okay I have to (none / 0) (#198)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:32:20 PM EST
    confess. I not only have cable, I subscribe and pay extra for DogTV.

    Although, technically it isn't cable. My son and I have this convoluted deal where I pay for his cable and my land line and internet, and he pays for my DirectTV and his internet (no land line).

    It's a mess, but it saves us about $20 a month.

    Parent

    It (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:24:47 PM EST
    is not hypothetical.

    Do you, or did Obama, know for a fact that the person presenting his problem was "squandering" his money on a cellphone - or cable? Is that the reason for his plight?

    Maybe the person in question has a cellphone so that he can make the living he is presently making. Maybe he needs it so that his family can keep in touch with him. I know that in my case, it would be a severe hardship to be forced to give it up in order to comply with his highness's mandate.

    Obama is answering a question from a real person by constructing a straw man - a straw man who throws his money away on tripe and luxury instead of buying insurance.

    You would think that Obama might have a few words about the cable companies and phone companies that gouge us instead of telling us to do without.

    But, he blames the victim instead.

    Parent

    "bgro" = gross yearly income of $36,0000 (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:43:13 PM EST


    Parent
    The president has no way of knowing (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    if the person who said he could not afford the insurance has cable and a smart phone. It is an assumption he made to allow him to depict the man as someone who does not spend his money wisely.

    Also what the president failed to mention is that the costs do not end once a person pays the monthly premium. There are deductibles that must be met before the insurance company pays out the first dollar in case of sickness or accident. These often equal thousands of dollars. And there are on-going co-pays. To someone like Obama, these costs are no big deal. To someone who grosses $36,000, paying out these amounts can be very significant.  

    Parent

    And sadly (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    Polio may be making a comeback
    link

    Yes. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    Polio is not eradicated yet globally.
    Cases have also been seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria.  
    Link.
    It's a concern where the health care system is bad, or has collapsed because of war or other factors.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:16:41 PM EST
    Hard to believe

    Parent
    Denver media was loving life today.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 09:55:03 PM EST
    over an hour long car chase broadcast on live TV and some of the footage was incredibly insane. A state trooper was literally a microsecond away from being killed when he bailed over a guard rail to avoid being run over. The driver drove over 100 mph at one point with a 4 year old in the back seat of carjacked car. At another point he was going the wrong way on an interstate for a while. Cops were desperately throwing spike strips at him. He pulled another woman out of her car for his 3rd carjack of the morning and she tried to fight back. Then a t-bone accident followed by a foot chase. Crazy.

    Duke Pornstar (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 10:54:24 PM EST
    What I am most  outraged by in this story is she turned down a full ride to my alma mater (Vanderbilt).

    Pornography over Vandy?

    Poor choice I say.

    Somebody got paid to write that? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:52:45 AM EST
    That's what's sad!

    It is America, land of the free, home of the brave :)!

    I am certain our history is full of such choices generation after generation.  Sometimes it works out much to the chagrin of the Ruth's of the world and sometimes it doesn't.  If it works out we make a documentary about you and your triumph in beating the odds :)

    Parent

    Can't agree (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    The life of a porn star is for many not a good one.

    And that is while they are making money.  After they are stigmatized by society.

    I've watched a lot of porn and since have given it up and to be honest one of the reasons is I asked myself could I handle my wife or daughter doing this?   Of course I couldn't.

    The late night movies on Cinemax are one thing.   Nudity, simulated sex, no big deal.

    But peruse the web for what is out there nowadays and it's enough to  make you wonder how any young girl would subject themselves to the stuff you can watch.   There is nothing empowering in a gang bang and that is mild compared to what you can watch.

    Let's see what the young lady has to say in 10 years.

    Parent

    I know what you are saying (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    But porn is not new.  Prostitution is also the world's oldest profession, and this is a free country.

    I am very vocal in my opinion that porn increases sexual objectification of individuals and decreases human intimacy on many levels.  It's still a free country though.  I can't choose people's faith for them, I can't choose their morals for them, and I have to respect their boundaries just as they have to respect mine.  And that's that

    To have so much obsession over the morals of others when it isn't directly impacting your life has always puzzled me.  There is a general framework of healthy social morals out there and each generation challenges that and learns different lessons.

    If you want to change things, stop making it lucrative for young people to make this choice, stop watching porn. It's pretty easy.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:49:30 AM EST
    That is why I stopped.

    However I'm free to warn young people that the consumption of porn is not a good idea, let alone participating in it.

    Cheers.

    Parent

    It's easy there too (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 10:53:31 AM EST
    But talking about sex in our culture is taboo.

    I was still in my 30's though when all this porn went online.  I was cougaring.  You want to know who the lousiest person in the sack is?  Someone who ingests a lot of porn. They are sexually lazy and their psyche is NUMB.

    Just be honest with the youngsters, tell them now and even if they don't immediately listen they will eventually get it, it will crop up in their life and then they will have that epiphany.

    Parent

    Sexism (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    "Female porn performers carry with them the stigma and sleaze factor because of the sexism in the porn industry and the way women are represented as debased, dehumanised and slutty.

    "Mainstream culture may be willing to tolerate some softcore porn but is not yet ready to make big stars out of female porn performers.

    "Male performers may have an easier time because they can cash in on their hyper-masculinised image, but it is too soon to tell."

    and the subject of this article is porn stars moving into mainstream acting.

    I think you will find it interesting to see how male porn stars do when moving into other business.

    "Did I ever think it would affect my career negatively?" he said. "No. Did I think that I might fall in love with somebody one day who might have a problem with it?
    Yes."

    From Pornography to Real Estate Mogul

    Look at the NYT picture? Do you think he is damaged goods?
    Or a stud who is determined to succeed..  ?

    Despite the ubiquity of "slut," where you won't hear it is in relation to men. Men can't be sluts. Sure, someone will occasionally call a guy "a dog," but men simply aren't judged like women are when it comes to sexuality. (And if they are, they're judged in a positive way!) Men who have a lot of sexual partners are studs, Casanovas, pimps, and players. Never sluts.

    alternet

    And what about Jeff Gannon/Guckert?

    Imagine the ensuing maelstrom if a gay male prostitute with a slew of solicitous websites (among them, militaryescorts.com) featuring nude photos of himself pimping his services was found to be kicking around the Obama White House.

    Jeff Gannon/Guckert became the most famous male hooker since Joe Buck when he made more than 200 appearances at the White House posing as a journalist with the conservative websites GOPUSA and Talon News, attending 155 White House press briefings. He possessed no previous journalism experience, and had previously been refused a congressional press pass.

    and even worse what if he was a she?

    I applaud Lauren A. for her position. And believe that she will do well.

    Parent

    As many times as "p*rn" is used (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    in this subthread, Jeralyn's going to have to either delete all the comments that use the word or some interation of it, or deep-six the entire open thread, because of filtering issues.

    Not picking on you - applies to all who are freely using and/or quoting the word.

    Parent

    She probably gets applauded... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:47:41 PM EST
    ...for any number of positions.

    Or at least gets a "standing ovation".  : - )

    Parent

    I don't think... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:23:40 AM EST
    the young lady is as dumb or naive as Ruth Marcus thinks....

    "To be perfectly honest, I felt more degraded in a minimum-wage, blue-collar, low-paying service job than I ever did doing porn," Knox said of her high school waitressing job.

    Finding to hard to argue with that...I've never done pron so I can't speak to how degrading it feels...but I've held sh&tty jobs and that sh*t is degrading for sure.

    Parent

    Well, at least Ruth Marcus (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:27:02 PM EST
    is not potentially getting exposed to HIV and other STD's while writing a newspaper column.
    And yes, HIV is an ongoing concern in the porn industry, for both males and females.
    Were Belle Knox's partners always (and I mean always) wearing condoms?  Many in the porn industry do not like condoms, because the "customers" prefer to see sex acts performed without them.

    Parent
    For Ruth Marcus' sake... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    I certainly hope she has been and will be potentially exposed to an std at some point in her personal, if not professional, life. ;)

    As for Belle...it's college, I don't think she is at much greater risk than the general student body.  True about the pron industry and condoms...but at least they are (supposedly) testing the actors before the shoot.

    Parent

    Depends upon exactly when they (none / 0) (#130)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:53:47 PM EST
    tested the actors before the shoot.  From the above link:

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the immune system typically takes two to eight weeks to make antibodies against the AIDS virus, which is what most HIV tests look for.
    Duke said the industry uses another type of HIV test--called an RNA test--which looks for the virus itself. The CDC says RNA tests can detect infection within 10 to 15 days of exposure. Just as there can be false positives in testing, though, so there can be false negatives.


    Parent
    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:11:15 PM EST
    there is no safe sex, only safer sex.  Nothing's foolproof, not even condoms....though I agree condoms are the safest of the safer options.

    But we'd probably both be shocked at how much unprotected sex is going on on college campuses Z.  As flawed as the standard pron industry protocols are, it's still probably safer than the general university hook-up scene.  

    Sh*t in my younger more promiscuous days I was shocked at how many women were willing to get intimate without a condom...and I came of age at the height of AIDS awareness in the early 90's.    

    Parent

    I'm sure that's true, (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:35:32 PM EST
    and it drives Mr. Zorba crazy.  He's a virologist.

    Every 9½ minutes, someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV. It is estimated that there are over 56,000 new cases of HIV in the U.S. each year.

    HHS

    Every 9½ minutes.  Yes, there are drugs that can keep it under control, and you can live many, many years with HIV now.  But the drugs are expensive, and they are not totally benign.  They do have side effects.  
    And this assumes you know you're infected.  About 1 in 5 people with HIV do not know they're infected.  

    Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.  It comes from living with a scientist.    ;-)


    Parent

    They're supposed to test, yes. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    But they often don't, and when the city of Los Angeles recently enacted an ordinance requiring performers to protect themselves and their partners, a number of these low-budget studios relocated outside city limits to Simi Valley, which is in Ventura County.

    But in L.A.'s San Fernando Valley, which is still where most of the stuff is produced, I'd offer that this multi-billion dollar industry has actually been quite successful in silencing and sometimes even shutting down its watchdogs.

    Producers were especially hostile to the efforts of an STD health clinic in the Valley that was run by former 1980s adult film star Sharon Mitchell, who had become one of the industry's most vocal public critics over its collective failure to protect its performers to the extent necessary.

    In many respects, Mitchell deserves kudos as the public whistleblower in this ongoing scandal. She approached the studios about doing something about the problem after her clinic diagnosed several performers as HIV-positive within a short period of time, and she went to the New York Times when they rebuffed her.

    Industry people in turn harassed Mitchell and her staff mercilessly, to the point where she had to close her clinic's doors in 2011, after its database was hacked from the outside and the personal health information and identities of some 12,000 adult industry performers was disclosed publicly. Industry gurus talked a few performers into filing a breach of privacy lawsuit against Mitchell, and viola! -- one less public voice for sanity and reason.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 11:31:26 PM EST
    I would say her choice is far better than the path Ruth Marcus took.

    That choice Marcus made seems really depressing to me.

    Parent

    Oh, cmon! Give Ruth a break! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:53:19 AM EST
    squeaky: "I would say her choice is far better than the path Ruth Marcus took."

    She was young, and she probably needed the money. Besides, and lucky for her, I don't think there are any copies of Ninja Vixens and Cheerleaders in Prison IV still in circulation, after they were all purchased by her co-star Sally Quinn.

    Parent

    "The Guardian" reports on the court (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    hearing re the lawsuit of Plantagenet family corp. seeking input re interment of the bones of Richard III:

    link

    Fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    Here is the statement from the Plantagenet Alliance. The facial reconstruction of Henry III shows a rather handsome man, but then the Plantagenets were known for being beautiful. Unlike the Habsburgs.

    Parent
    Finally (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    A real fight

    I don't like the guy, where are the missing princes?  He's no blood kin of mine.  Find him another parking lot :)

    A MONARCH?!

    He stole the crown, or did he?

    Parent

    Maybe not. See (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    Jacqueline Tey's "The Daughter of Time":

    link

    Parent

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    Just downloaded. Have you read it?

    Parent
    Yes. Good read. (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:17:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Excuse me. Please do not apply the (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:13:56 PM EST
    descriptor "cabal" to random commenters here. [snk.]

    So, in other news (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:27:33 PM EST
    Amazon is raising its Prime membership rate from $79 to $99. Many people are not happy.

    And, in Mississipi, a bill is headed to the governor's desk for his signature that will allow the state to start drug testing food stamp recipients.

    Residents who apply for food stamp benefits in Mississippi will have to submit to drug testing if the state deems they are likely to be substance abusers under a new measure headed to Gov. Phil Bryant's (R) desk.

    The bill passed the state Senate on Wednesday after passing the state House earlier this year. It would require new applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to submit to a questionnaire that would evaluate the likelihood of substance abuse.

    Applicants deemed at risk of substance abuse would then be required to take a drug test. Testing positive once would require a TANF recipient to undergo treatment for substance abuse; testing positive a second time would get a recipient booted from the program for 90 days. A third positive test would exclude a recipient for up to a year.
    Over 200 comments (none / 0) (#204)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    so it stops threading correctly.

    this thread is closed (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 12:37:14 AM EST
    I'm weeding out the insults.

    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 178 comments (178 topical)