Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.
Make a new account
But you're full of continuous gloom and doom about the ACA much like the Republicans. Are there problems with the law? Certainly there are problems. There is also some good in the law too. What annoys me the most is people's failure to discuss the actual problem with Obamacare which is its dependence on the very flawed business model of the insurance companies. Have you noticed that the GOP can never somehow deal with the truth of this matter? They annoy me because they act like everything was perfect before Obamacare came along and it was not.
v. 307 v. 306
Happy Thursday, peeps. Off to sign my son up for high school today. Can't believe he's this old already. But who can as parents?
Peace.
- Peter Tosh Parent
I can't remember who said it, but I read that someone said that either the US has more criminals than anyplace, or we have a truly fked up system.
I guess I opt for the latter --- but...
Considering that anyone smoking a toke of weed is a criminal...
Well - those would seem to be the options.
Maybe we qualify on both grounds. We're all criminals (including every single elected official) and we have a broken fked up racist elitist system. Parent
That seems to me to be a ninth-circle-of-hell, Catch-22 kind of problem.
Is that an Obama problem? An ACA problem? I think the answer to that is "no" in both cases - but it is a problem and I don't think MD is the only place where it is happening.
As long as we have it, I'd like it to work for as many people as possible; if it fails, I think we end up with something far worse, and no hope of ever getting a universal-type system.
No good deed goes unpunished.
jbs been posting virtually that same "analysis" concerning the Tea Party's demise bi-weekly for months.
Look, I'm not on the same page as jb. I don't reach the same conclusions that she does, but she is, in fact, providing the data that informs her conclusions. Which, frankly speaking, is much, much more than any you or any of her other critics do. With the possible exception of Ga6thDem.
Perhaps I should cease commenting on blogs. Pretty much a waste of time and emotion.
Be good to each other.
And you know what now when I sit in a waiting room all I hear is 'this is the first time I have been to a doctor in years', 'I couldn't believe how cheap it was', 'my baby has never been to a doctor'. The environment has changed. You do not sit in that room and bad mouth Obamacare.
But right now you ARE one of the very few who are getting policies for $70 (plus a subsidy). That's great. Most people aren't getting that, and I know you know that.
This is a meme I expect comes from urban dwellers with higher than average incomes about this law.
Actually, I find that where I live it is exactly those people who LOVE this law. Of course, most of them aren't actually subject to this law, since their "higher than average incomes" tend to come with things like employer-based insurance, so it's easy to love something if you aren't affected by it.
Unfortunately, that isn't my experience. My plan was canceled (even though it was a good plan but just didn't cover maternity care, which I originally opted out of). So, instead I got to buy a plan that was about 10-15% higher than what I was paying, for a smaller network. And since I am an hourly employee who works on a project (temp) basis, where my income changes drastically year to year, it's kind of hard to budget for almost $300 / month (plus more, since I won't ever meet my deductible).
So, I am generally happy that you are able to go to the doctor and get your meds. But please don't think that those of us who aren't in love with this law feel that way just because of Obama, or because we hate poor people, or that we're big meanies, or that we aren't quite as enlightened as you, or whatever. Parent
Yes, I'm suggesting that your very personal experience may actually represent the minority/smaller outcome of the ACA. I continue to support the utilitarian and broader outlook of focusing on the "greatest good for the greatest number." Parent
Some of America's best cancer hospitals are off-limits to many of the people now signing up for coverage under the nation's new health care program. Doctors and administrators say they're concerned. So are some state insurance regulators. An Associated Press survey found examples coast to coast. ... Those patients may not be able get the most advanced treatment, including clinical trials of new medications. Also, it's not easy for consumers to tell if top-level institutions are included in a plan. "The challenges of this are going to become evident ... as cancer cases start to arrive," said Norman Hubbard, executive vice president of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
Doctors and administrators say they're concerned. So are some state insurance regulators. An Associated Press survey found examples coast to coast. ... Those patients may not be able get the most advanced treatment, including clinical trials of new medications. Also, it's not easy for consumers to tell if top-level institutions are included in a plan.
"The challenges of this are going to become evident ... as cancer cases start to arrive," said Norman Hubbard, executive vice president of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
As a cancer survivor, this is a major concern to me. In MO, the #1 cancer center is not in the limited network offered by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The only other insurance company on the exchange in MO does include BJC in their higher cost PPOs. IOW too poor to afford the higher coverage, forget about getting the most advanced treatment. Parent
Insurance companies have been pretty clear about the narrowing of networks, and even what I would call red-lining, restricting access for those in urban and/or low-income areas where chronic conditions are putting more of a strain on profits. Can you imagine not being able to see doctors or go to hospitals close to you, and be restricted to providers in areas that, if they are serviced by public transportation, require an investment of time and money that you might not be able to expend just to get there?
Anyone with a lick of sense knew that all of these coverage mandates were going to result in insurance companies finding other ways to keep their bottom lines up where they want them to be. And so it goes.
You mentioned in a comment that no one has been talking about the futility of building a new system on the foundation of the old one. I'm someone who has mentioned that on many occasions, from the beginning of the push to reform, and all I get from people like squeaky when I bring it up now is more sneering and manipulating of my comments. Others have also brought this up, and they get the same treatment - because, don't you know, pointing these things out is all about hating Obama, and not at all about wanting a better system that makes access to affordable care a given for everyone. Parent
"We had narrow networks in the `90s. Health-care prices not only moderated, but actually there was one year where they fell," said Northwestern University professor David Dranove, who specializes in the health care industry. "Then we had the HMO backlash and we had broad networks [again], and health care prices went through the roof."
But in any state, making every insurer accept every hospital, "is going to throttle competition," said Dranove, the Northwestern professor who specializes in the health industry. "And this is a healthcare reform that depends entirely on competition. So the people who are fighting for broad networks... are ultimately fighting for the demise of Obamacare
Link
Again, I ask people, how they envisioned this working under a Medicare for all/single payer option? You'd be able to go to any doctor you want? All the docs and hospitals would just line up to accept cuts to their income? That numerous doctors and hospitals wouldn't go out of business because they couldn't adequately staff?
Why are people not going after providers of care w/the same zeal? You are horribly misinformed going after insurers who are trying to work w/in the existing cost structures. We don't have exorbitant Wall-Street type profits.
Whatever system you use you have to deal w/the costs at some point.
Even as Spain and Greece gut their own costly health-care systems in an effort to control government spending, French President François Hollande is struggling to preserve his country's enviably generous benefits, which most citizens consider a right. Aware that any attempt to dramatically curtail perks would likely lead to massive protests, Hollande has taken a more modest approach to cost-cutting. France's health system now requires doctors to reduce the number of drugs they prescribe and to substitute generics for brand-name pharmaceuticals. The government says cuts in the cost of prescription medicines will save 530 million ($702.4 million) in 2013. Patients in other European nations have long used generics, but many French view no-name drugs with suspicion and demand the real thing.
sound familiar?
This whole debate looks to me like what happened w/manufacturing in this company. We wanted it cheaper, to buy what we wanted when we wanted. Didn't think about those jobs that would get off-shored to never return. We are doomed to repeat those same mistakes if we don't learn from the past. Parent
Didn't think about those jobs that would get off-shored to never return.
We are doomed to repeat those same mistakes if we don't learn from the past.
People here in MO were able to go to Siteman and other BJC facilities prior to the insurers deciding to narrow the networks this year on the exchange. BJC facilities were in network for HMOs and PPOs policies here. I started treatment at Siteman under my HMO policy and I have been treated by Wash. U. (BJC) doctors for as long as I can remember.
The reason this is getting so much attention is that eliminating the best cancer centers and the better children's hospitals from policies is new here and not something that was standard prior to implementation of Obama's insurance legislation. Parent
By not including a top cancer center, an insurer can cut costs. It may also shield itself from risk, delivering an implicit message to cancer survivors or people with a strong family history of the disease that they should look elsewhere. For now, the issue seems to be limited to the new insurance exchanges. But it could become a concern for Americans with job-based coverage too if employers turn to narrow networks.
For now, the issue seems to be limited to the new insurance exchanges. But it could become a concern for Americans with job-based coverage too if employers turn to narrow networks.
Bottom line, it become a way to avoid covering costly preexisting conditions at no extra costs. Parent
Bottom line, it become a way to avoid covering costly preexisting conditions at no extra costs.
If you can get that same treatment somewhere else? Parent
Did you, or did you only see that which you wanted to see:
The unique role of cancer centers is recognized under Medicare. Several are exempt from its hospital payment system, instituted to control costs.
Several, not ALL. How is that any different from a network?
Do you know CMS Policy re: Clinical Trials? That if CMS covers it, insurers who offer Medicare Choice policies must cover it also?
Medicare regulations require Medicare+Choice (M+C) organizations to follow CMS's national coverage decisions.......M+C organizations therefore must cover these services regardless of whether they are available through in-network providers. M+C organizations may have reporting requirements when enrollees participate in clinical trials, in order to track and coordinate their members' care, but cannot require prior authorization or approval.
and yes, I make no apologies for defending that which provides me w/my livelihood. Particularly when those that attack it present a biased view of the facts.
and you didn't answer my question. I'll answer it for you - people can choose coverage that provides care at the facility they want. It may not be the lowest cost plan, or may not be w/the insurer they want, but the options do exist. Parent
I'll answer it for you - people can choose coverage that provides care at the facility they want. It may not be the lowest cost plan, or may not be w/the insurer they want, but the options do exist.
It did not say no hospitals were covered by no plan.
But your comment was very smooth. A very smooth move indeed. It almost sounds like a reasonable response and not an industry deflection. Parent
Before President Barack Obama's health care law, a cancer diagnosis could make you uninsurable. Now, insurers can't turn away people with health problems or charge them more. Lifetime dollar limits on policies, once a financial trapdoor for cancer patients, are also banned. ... The new obstacles are more subtle. To keep premiums low, insurers have designed narrow networks of hospitals and doctors. The government-subsidized private plans on the exchanges typically offer less choice than Medicare or employer plans. By not including a top cancer center, an insurer can cut costs. It may also shield itself from risk, delivering an implicit message to cancer survivors or people with a strong family history of the disease that they should look elsewhere. For now, the issue seems to be limited to the new insurance exchanges. But it could become a concern for Americans with job-based coverage too if employers turn to narrow networks. link
To keep premiums low, insurers have designed narrow networks of hospitals and doctors. The government-subsidized private plans on the exchanges typically offer less choice than Medicare or employer plans.
By not including a top cancer center, an insurer can cut costs. It may also shield itself from risk, delivering an implicit message to cancer survivors or people with a strong family history of the disease that they should look elsewhere.
For now, the issue seems to be limited to the new insurance exchanges. But it could become a concern for Americans with job-based coverage too if employers turn to narrow networks. link
This is being recognized as a real problem and not just anti-ACA spin:
The Obama administration says it has notified insurers that their networks will get closer scrutiny for next year in the 36 states served by the federal exchange. Cancer care will be a priority, it says.
The narrow networks are also excluding some of the top children's hospital.
Hopefully Obama will really follow up on these problems because they are real and impede people getting the best care available. Parent
As the numbers roll in and continue to roll up, it may be that you will come to re-look at the percentages of benefits.
"Enrollment numbers"? (which mean nothing until people have paid for their premium, as you very well know by now).
"Numbers who actually get access to care"?
I continue to support the utilitarian and broader outlook of focusing on the "greatest good for the greatest number."
Got evidence for this? Parent
Those but-what-about and what-if questions that emerge from any large scale national, and even statewide program, will be analyzed as well. For now, I would suggest that the "but-but-buts" as to the growing & obvious enrollment numbers are classic red-herrings. We'll see, soon enough. Parent
2014 is shaping up as the year the Republican establishment is finding its footing. Of the 12 Republican senators on the ballot, six face primary competition, but only one looks seriously threatened: Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi. More significantly, only two House Republicans are facing credible competition from tea-party conservatives: Simpson and Rep. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania--fewer than the number of conservative House Republicans facing competition from the establishment wing (Reps. Justin Amash, Walter Jones, and Kerry Bentivolio). With filing deadlines already passed in 23 states, it's hard to see that dynamic changing. Even the Club for Growth, one of the first outside groups to target Republican members of Congress, has been notably disciplined this year. Last February, the Club encouraged candidates to run against 10 squishy House Republicans, launching a PrimaryMyCongressman.com site featuring the so-called RINOs. Only one qualified challenger emerged. Their PAC is targeting just one Republican senator (Cochran, facing state Sen. Chris McDaniel) and one Republican congressman (Simpson). Meanwhile, they've joined forces with the party establishment in backing Senate candidates Rep. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Dan Sullivan of Alaska. The endorsement of Sullivan is significant, since they backed Joe Miller's losing general-election campaign against Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2010. Miller's running again, but this time they're opposing him in the primary.
Even the Club for Growth, one of the first outside groups to target Republican members of Congress, has been notably disciplined this year. Last February, the Club encouraged candidates to run against 10 squishy House Republicans, launching a PrimaryMyCongressman.com site featuring the so-called RINOs. Only one qualified challenger emerged. Their PAC is targeting just one Republican senator (Cochran, facing state Sen. Chris McDaniel) and one Republican congressman (Simpson). Meanwhile, they've joined forces with the party establishment in backing Senate candidates Rep. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Dan Sullivan of Alaska. The endorsement of Sullivan is significant, since they backed Joe Miller's losing general-election campaign against Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2010. Miller's running again, but this time they're opposing him in the primary.
Lots of Tea Party candidates are running, but few are winning:
Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has declared open war on outside groups -- like the Senate Conservatives Fund -- who provide the financial backing for tea party challengers to sitting incumbents. Tea party-aligned primary candidates have fizzled. In a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal national poll, just 23 percent of people had a positive image of the tea party while 41 percent had a negative impression -- the worst numbers for any individual or group tested other than Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But Cilizza isn't ready to call the fight over just yet:
Simply put: It's easy to write the "Tea Party is dead" story. But, according to a fascinating new project out of the Brookings Institution that aims to study the 2014 primary season (more of this please!), the tea party remains relevant -- largely because it supplies the vast majority of candidates willing to take on sitting Republican incumbents at the federal level.
And not for nothing, but analysts are starting to predict that the stars just might be lining up for a Republican takeover of the Senate, somewhat in part because the Tea Party crazies aren't suckig up the oxygen and air time ala Christine O'Donnell, Todd Aiken, and Sharon Angle. Charlie Cook -just today:
On Monday, we took a fresh look at the Senate landscape on the heels of Scott Brown's announcement that he will run in New Hampshire. The conclusion? Republicans have more reasons than perhaps at any previous point this election cycle to be bullish about winning back the majority. Today comes more evidence the tide is shifting in Republicans' favor. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report --a widely respected independent political handicapper -- moved a trio of Democratic-held seats from "Lean Democratic" to "Toss-up." In addition, Brown's entrance moved New Hampshire from "Likely Democratic" to "Lean Democratic," meaning it looks more likely to fall into Republican hands than before.
Today comes more evidence the tide is shifting in Republicans' favor. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report --a widely respected independent political handicapper -- moved a trio of Democratic-held seats from "Lean Democratic" to "Toss-up." In addition, Brown's entrance moved New Hampshire from "Likely Democratic" to "Lean Democratic," meaning it looks more likely to fall into Republican hands than before.
SNIP
With the new moves, eight Democratic seats now fall into Cook Report's "Toss-up," "Lean Republican" or "Likely Republican" categories: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota. Just two GOP seats fall into the corresponding Democratic categories: Georgia and Kentucky. Republicans need to net six seats for the majority. In addition to the eight ripest opportunities above, they also stand chances of picking up Colorado and New Hampshire -- chances that did not exit [sic] before Gardner and Brown entered the mix. There's also Iowa, a Democratic seat worth watching, even as the Republican field has struggled and Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley (D) has done well so far.
Republicans need to net six seats for the majority. In addition to the eight ripest opportunities above, they also stand chances of picking up Colorado and New Hampshire -- chances that did not exit [sic] before Gardner and Brown entered the mix. There's also Iowa, a Democratic seat worth watching, even as the Republican field has struggled and Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley (D) has done well so far.
Your cabin sounds great. Off the grid for an extended period of time. It would give one time to read books--do people still do that?
And I can imagine how the dogs would love to just roam free. Parent
So they don't have to win to accomplish many of their goals. Parent
I would (5.00 / 1) (#36) by lentinel on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 06:00:56 AM MDT like to see a tea party on the left. A coffee party.
like to see a tea party on the left. A coffee party.
::ducks:: Parent
I don't understand why the people with the money are not focusing like a laser of registering and educating these people. Here's an idea spend every penny we have on this. Forget advertising. Parent
How do you preserve and inject life into the agenda of the hard-right after Bush? Create a "new" party and talk as though what came before had nothing whatsoever to do with us and what we believe. Parent
jbindc: "And not for nothing, but analysts are starting to predict that the stars just might be lining up for a Republican takeover of the Senate, somewhat in part because the Tea Party crazies aren't suckig up the oxygen and air time ala Christine O'Donnell, Todd Aiken, and Sharon Angle."
... we might as well simply dispense with the election altogether and hand it to them. And for someone who's regularly claimed to be a Democrat, you sure seem to like waving the GOP's pom-poms a lot in these threads.
As longtime San Antonio TV sportscaster Dan Cook once warned over-exuberant Spurs fans during the 1979 NBA Eastern Conference championship series when their team led the Washington Bullets by three games to one, "The opera ain't over 'til the fat lady sings." His warning proved prescient, because the Spurs went on to lose that series in seven.
Suffice to say that a lot can happen between now and Election Day in November. You best remember that -- certainly better than you did in 2012, when you were busy rooting for a Mitt Romney presidency here at TL.
Aloha. Parent
One, there's a distinct possibility that the so-called analysts would prefer an election season that won't be the equivalent of a knock-out in the first round - it works much better for the media if there are actual contests, and one way to ensure that is to "analyze" them into reality.
Two, I got the impression not that jb was cheerleading for the GOP, but showing that the demise of the Tea Party may not be good news for Democrats - that if the GOP can find its footing and successfully re-brand (I have my doubts they can, just because there are a lot of Republicans doing and saying some very stupid things), Democrats could get caught napping - to their detriment. I mean, let's face it: Dems do have a tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on occasion.
Finally, you do yourself no favors joining the contingent that keeps wanting to paint jb as a Mitt Romney supporter. For someone who presents himself as having such keen political instincts, it's somewhat surprising you can't tell the difference between support for a Republican candidate and identifying the biggest threats to the Democratic candidate. So, jb was wrong in terms of how much of a threat Romney turned out to be, but that doesn't make her a Romney supporter. But maybe the flying debris from your manically-waving Democratic pom-poms obscured your vision. Parent
Since the mid 1700's pompon has had the more common usage in the English language, other than a short stretch in the early 1900's and then again starting about 1995. Parent
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961) gives the spelling as "pompon." The New Oxford American Dictionary (third edition, 2010) gives the spelling as "pom-pom." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th edition, 2011) gives the spelling as "pompom" or "pompon." Webster's New World College Dictionary (fourth edition) gives the spelling as "pompom."
The New Oxford American Dictionary (third edition, 2010) gives the spelling as "pom-pom."
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th edition, 2011) gives the spelling as "pompom" or "pompon."
Webster's New World College Dictionary (fourth edition) gives the spelling as "pompom."
At least it is a civil debate with both sides providing facts to substantiate their spelling preferences. Parent
Apart from the wishful thinking of some less radical conservative pundits, take a close look at the positions espoused by Republican candidates (even excluding Gohmert) and ponder how the top-polling potential 2016 candidates among Republican are Tea Party-favorites Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Whatever the name, whatever the title ... the last several years has witnessed the infusion of extreme conservative politics into the "center" of the full Republican party. Parent
I do think the GOP will probably take back the Senate this time - the schedule of seats up is just too much against the Dems this time. The Dems could get it back in 2016 though, when the schedule is more favorable, and there is a national election. The two years int he meantime are lost anyway the way things are now.
If it sounds like I have mostly given up...it is because I have... Parent
"Politicos and election officials are confirming Republican Scott Wagner's apparent victory in the 28th Senate as the first time a write-in candidate has won an election for state Senate in Pennsylvania." Parent
I think we were discussing this the other day
Analyzing five risk factors for societal collapse (population, climate, water, agriculture and energy), the report says that the sudden downfall of complicated societal structures can follow when these factors converge to form two important criteria. Motesharrei's report says that all societal collapses over the past 5,000 years have involved both "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity" and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]." This "Elite" population restricts the flow of resources accessible to the "Masses", accumulating a surplus for themselves that is high enough to strain natural resources. Eventually this situation will inevitably result in the destruction of society. Elite power, the report suggests, will buffer "detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners," allowing the privileged to "continue 'business as usual' despite the impending catastrophe." This is what happened to Rome and the Mayans, according to the report.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/85541/nasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not -looking-good-for-us
I just can't buy that she wouldn't scream when being shot several times. Parent
Speaking for myself only, I think it's really too bad that someone in authority never made a real effort prior to this tragedy to encourage Oscar to seriously reconsider his obvious enchantment with firearms and gunplay, given the several earlier incidents and run-ins he had with law enforcement over this very issue, prior to the shooting of his girlfriend. At the very least, this was a readily avoidable incident.
I have a more basic problem with firing through the bathroom door when the bathroom has no entry to the home.
OTOH without something solid as to motive where does it go? Parent
More disturbing
what is happening in Russia or the fact that a growing herd of US conservatives are all but openly praising Putin for being a "real man"
But - take a look at the likes of the conservatives in government: McCain for example.
Plenty of blustery hot air on both sides of the aisle.
Of course, imo, we and the Europeans have become economically interdependent on dealings with Russia - and so they are all scratching their heads trying to figure a way to "punish" Russia without losing any money in the process. Parent
What I meant to say was what is happening in Russia - the nationalism, the aggressive new impearialism and, yes the anti gay fever - scares the sh!t out of me. Parent
It even pales in contrast with our treatment of detainees and our ongoing drone program.
This is not to whitewash Putin. But I cannot at this point demonize him either.
His worst characteristics are nothing compared to the likes of Bush and Cheney - as yet untouched for their fiendish and criminal activities and the devastation they caused here and around the world.
This is subjective of course, but Putin does not frighten me at the moment. And he was, I believe, instrumental in defusing a feverish move toward war with Syria.
For me, there is some complexity here.
His views on homosexuality are nuts. But they are not that far from a load of nut cases here - both in government and in a segment of the homemade religious community as per your link.
Even as late as 2008, Obama was unwilling to publicly endorse efforts to legalize marriage among same sex couples - citing his "religious" upbringing.
If our house were a little more in order, I would feel more comfortable in condemning leaders of other countries for actions that bear an uncomfortable likeness to our own. Parent
Or at least we are informed by pollsters that we do so - even if we are kicking and screaming in the streets protesting the actions of the CIC.
I think we should learn something from the tendency you describe of refraining from criticism of the chief exec when that exec is leading us into a mindless war - sacrificing the lives of so many.
We reaped the whirlwind. And it is still with us. Parent
Not sure where that leaves us non-military folk. Parent
I assume that is a term designating "wimp"?
I don't know how I would classify Obama.
He seems to come out from wherever it is he abides, utters a few scripted (or unscripted, as when he said that people who couldn't afford to buy mandated insurance are squandering their money on cellphones and cable instead) words.... then he disappears.
I wouldn't call any chief exec a wimp - because it could stimulate them to prove otherwise and blow us all up in the process.
I saw a documentary about Kennedy. It showed a chilling clip of him saying that he and the USSR might be on the brink of killing everyone and everything on the planet... but so be it. If pressed, he'd push the button.
Oooof!
Obama is, relatively speaking, a relief from the horrific Bush era. I do wish he would distance himself from those malevolent cretans, but... business is business I suppose.
Fortunately, he can come out and roar from time to time, but thankfully then he goes away and the press goes on to a new topic like Lady Gaga. Parent
The point being is if your not going to do anything then don't say anything. That is Obamas biggest fault. The belief in his own power to read a TelePrompTer and change the world with his words.
He talks big and then nothing happens.
Just shut up already and speak with your actions instead of blathering on about the history books and the world community. Parent
But the good words seem to have been enough for him to be reelected in contrast to the bad words uttered by McCain and then Romney.
But - as far as actions or real leadership are concerned - all these last years have shown me is that while the verbiage may vary from the mouths of those designated as liberals or conservatives - the underlying ethos of both parties is pretty much the same. They are interested in holding their jobs - making a nice taste - bellowing from time to time to let people know that they're there - or that they're interested in running for even higher office...
The only thing that gives me the faintest glimmer of optimism is that I think that there is a sense that the public is fed up with the government giving us an evil empire du jour while ignoring the day-to-day hardships endured by the American people. Parent
He talks and talks and talks but then does nothing. What's the point?
Is it just the natural politicians need to feel relevant? The urge to say something while knowing you're not actually going to do anything!
The world is watching Obama to see what he does and for now the verdict is talks much, does little. Parent
Real men use bombs. Parent
Some of Obama's harshest critics are people who fled the former Soviet Union, like the Peoples Cube and they take the actions personally.
The naivete is stunning to some, how Romney was ridiculed for saying Russia was a major problem, to Obama hoping sanctions etc against Russia wouldn't impact negotiations with Iran and Syria. Parent
I remember when political differences stopped an the waters edge. Back when we had white presidents. Parent
About 20% haven't paid so they really don't have insurance.
Only 14% were previously uninsured.
So after 4 years of planning and preparation and billions spent were going to net out insuring 672,000 people who previously didn't have insurance.
What grade do you give that?
A Parent
Rx costs jumped around for a year or so, and those have settled down, no idea why, but we only take garden variety generics.
ACA in general I don't think a solid answer can be given yet. Insurance works as I understand it in a quarterly fashion, Q1 data is collected, Q2 reviewed, Q3 changes proposed to regulators, Q4 new rates announced. Comments I've read suggest the sign up demographics so far will require much higher rates to support. Parent
It was an annual not so funny joke even back in the 90s that non union folks got a negative raise each year since the raise in the insurance premium was always more than annual pay increase.
Before Obama became president, people on the individual market were dropping health insurance because they could not afford it and many companies dropped coverage or were considering dropping coverage due to the expense.
2007 information
The percentage of people with health insurance through their employers -- traditionally the way most people get coverage -- is continuing to shrink, raising anxiety among workers and invigorating a debate about whether insurance should be tied to jobs. ... That's fueling concern among consumers such as Ruggiero who say the system isn't working and is poised to leave rising numbers of people -- particularly those with health problems -- struggling to get insurance: *The percentage of all employers offering health insurance in the past eight years peaked in 2000 at 69% and has fallen steadily since, hitting 60% this year, according to an annual survey of employers by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Among small firms of three to nine workers, the percentage offering insurance has dropped even more -- from 58% in 2001 to 45% this year. *From 2001 to 2005, the number of uninsured U.S. workers rose by 3.4 million. Almost 19 million workers -- 17% of all employees -- were uninsured in 2005, according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
*The percentage of all employers offering health insurance in the past eight years peaked in 2000 at 69% and has fallen steadily since, hitting 60% this year, according to an annual survey of employers by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Among small firms of three to nine workers, the percentage offering insurance has dropped even more -- from 58% in 2001 to 45% this year.
*From 2001 to 2005, the number of uninsured U.S. workers rose by 3.4 million. Almost 19 million workers -- 17% of all employees -- were uninsured in 2005, according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
The problem areas where Obama's health insurance legislation "stinks" are because the legislation is based on the private insurance industry. Those problem areas are not new. They have been in existence for decades.
They will exist as long as the U.S. wants to support the private insurance industry and pharma more than it wants to provide real affordable health CARE to its citizens.
BTW, please let me know when Republicans start supporting single payer health care. Parent
We are "lucky" in that our decent plans that were serving us well (including surgeries with excellent doctors) were cancelled. Because of that, we're exempt from the tax for not having insurance, so we're going without. The one benefit of Obamacare for us is that we can sign up again when the now 3-year exemption we have is done, if the law hasn't been ditched by then. October 2016 is the magic date.
I am eligible for subsidies. But the quasi-Medicaid Exchange plans offered here required driving 45 minutes to get to an in-network hospital. NONE of my specialists were providers on the plans. The narrow networks were a huge deal for me. It would be money in the toilet to buy a plan where I have to pay for my decent doctors anyway. No point in even bothering with the third rate doctors I was "allowed" to see on the Exchange plans. I'd rather just be sick.
Opting out is a decent solution for me. I literally have $10,000 that I can spend on care before I even miss insurance. My SO has another $10,000 in our "insurance" pool.
And don't forget the fact that most cancer centers aren't providers on Exchange plans and they haven't even explored the other high end providers that aren't included...like the research hospitals that do transplants, etc...so that "well what if you really get sick" argument is moot. If you really get sick, you pay out of pocket anyway. Even the hospitals that accept the sub-grade Exchange plans have contracts with.... yes, the cancer centers that aren't providers on Exchange plans. This is a lovely scam being run here. Yes, the premiums are lower if you get subsidies, but still, don't get really sick or you are screwed to the high hills, and you're paying for the privilege of getting screwed.
People in our area have the option of purchasing a plan outside of the Exchange that still has a decent provider list. But see paragraph 1.
People who are saying how wonderful the premiums are. Are you specialists on your plan? Are your area hospitals on your plan? Are the cancer centers that the area hospitals contract with on your plan? Likely not, for at least some of those questions.
Waiting for my downratings. They are badges of honor! They show that I truly got to you. Parent
LINK
Love him or hate him...when you're right you're right. Granted, he might be as full of sh*t as Obama is in regards to domestic spying and privacy, but he gives good rhetoric on the issue.
So far I have seen exactly no legislation proposed and lobbied for by Rand. on these issues.
Let us not forget that this is a man who would have voted against the Voting Rights Act. Parent
I'm all for harsh criticism of his extreme positions and wrong positions...but like I said, when you're right you're right. Democrats would be wise to beat Rand to the punch on issues of government spying, foreign policy, drug policy, etc. These are issues that are very important to dirty effin' hippies like me.
PS...I've been thinking about ya, hope all is well as can be Cap. Parent
And in regards to domestic spying, it appears we are all the "right people". Parent
When one talks "freedom" exclusively--and, I do mean "exclusively"--that statement and the signal is that those who have can keep (and get more) and those that do not have can have the "freedom" to keep not having. There would be no leveling-the-playing field even attempted ... there would be no need for protection of and advancement of civil rights because everyone would be "free" to do what they want. In his definition of "freedom," we see writ large the directive to look out first, second, & last for yourself alone; and, with a paranoid defensiveness, abjure any responsibility for anyone or anything else. The Libertarian motto of "Every man for himself." Parent
Address these civil liberties issues D's, continue to ignore them and a maniac like Rand Paul starts to look attractive. Parent
I have no desire to be an advocate for the scorched earth extremes of the libertarian policies, we've been down that road...but ya gotta give 'em passing marks on foreign policy, drug policy, civil liberties. An inconvenient truth, if you will. Parent
I'm not sure he's ready to take on a national campaign for President either and truly by the time they get through the GOP primary it turns even a moderate candidate like Romney into a crackpot. Parent
It would appear to be that your argument is that the health care system was better off before ACA?
Why has it failed you?
This law has failed many of us because it didn't have to be this way and we are stuck with it. You want to paint me as someone who doesn't think anyone benefitted from this bill, but of course, I never, ever said that - some people did of course benefit. And I'm ok with that.
But what you keep failing to acknowledge is that millions of people are not benefitting (i.e. 7-12 million people had their plans canceled, and then uncanceled, and many are left scrambling). You benefitted with lower rates - that's great. But you have such venom for anyone who dares bring up the fact that it isn't all roses and rainbows and unicorns, that you come off as an uncaring, unfeeling jerk - much like you accuse others of. I don't know why you can't acknowledge that many people were hurt by this, but of in your mind, I guess, those people deserve it. Parent
Besides the regular rate increase that comes yearly, I had to add maternity coverage to my plan...
My insurance had regular rate increases prior to ACA and it was close to $900/month. No prescription drugs, no dental and I am sure no other things.
It did drop in the year before ACA to low $800s because of a law that forced insurers to pool independent subscribers..
Now my plan is a little above $400. platinum, with prescription and dental. Under your logic my plan should have gone up too, so your opinion as to why your plan increased does not make sense.
As far as insurance skyrocketing. we will see.
Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.
The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP's prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015........ After this story was published, the administration pointed to some independent analyses that have cast doubt on whether the current mix of enrollees will lead to premium hikes.
After this story was published, the administration pointed to some independent analyses that have cast doubt on whether the current mix of enrollees will lead to premium hikes.
do you think it has to do with politics, GOP politics? Parent
However, she wasn't the one providing the answer. She was only relating it. And yet here you are blaming the messenger.
It's terrific that you have a good rate for your plan and appear to be happy with the coverage. I mean that. But you live in a completely different state. What do your circumstances in New York have to do with hers in Virginia?
Do you think it has to do with politics, GOP politics?
Personally I don't think so. I think it has to do with profits. For insurance companies. Parent
What is on the table is that the ACA is a failure and is going to get much worse presumably imploding at its apogee of worseness.
jbindc's policy went up. s/he believes it went up because of added (unneeded) maternity coverage mandated by ACA, and the facts that rates go up annually.
my policy went down by half, and my insurance coverage increased to include prescription drugs, and dental care, both of which were not on my policy prior to ACA.
So how is ACA a failure and going to get worse? And how does the answer that insurance company profiteering is responsible?
My insurance went down, as did insurance for many people I know. Pennsylvania, CA, NY, MN..
So if insurance company profits are to blame for jbindc's increase how do you square my decrease?
Seems to me that the blanket statement insurance company profits is not a one size fits all answer. Parent
v. 308 v. 307
Get your Fridays on, my good friends. Peace to all.
But don't worry. He's going to raise the minimum wage.
As if that will help.