Monday Afternoon Open Thread

Looks like we're all busy at work today. What I'm reading:

  • Border Corruption Probe: Agents taking bribes from smugglers.
    In the past 10 months, 20 agents from Customs and Border Protection alone have been charged with a corruption-related crime. At that pace, the organization will set a new record for in-house corruption.
  • Multiple rape claimsin Iran against prison guards by both male and female detained protesters.
    Senior police and judiciary officials acknowledged over the weekend that opposition detainees have been abused in prison and called for those responsible to be punished, apparently in an effort to calm public outrage over the mistreatment and death of prisoners.

Here's an open thread for you, all topics welcome.

< Richard Aborn: A Progressive Running for Manhattan District Attorney | Obama "Brushes Asides" Reports of Human Rights Violations in Mexican Drug War >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Happy Monday! (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:01:31 PM EST

    Oxymoron! (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    (Well, usually).

    Case of The Mondays.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    caught a summer cold and I refuse to waste a sick day on actual sickness...office is dead so I have to make pretend I'm working, which is harder than actually working...2 co-workers brought in their kids which is usually fun but I can't deal with this cold and 100 lb. head...Calgon take me away!!!!

    Or at least fast-forward to five so I get home and medicate myself to sleep:)


    Sorry kdog (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:14:19 PM EST
    If you're really stuffy, you might try some real Sudafed (Pseudoephedrine) from behind the counter.

    Otherwise, plenty of water!


    Water and lots of citrus fruits... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    I don't really mess with the cold remedies...a towel over the head over a pot of boiling water clears me up pretty good.

    Well, as they say ... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:38:37 PM EST
    about cold remedies take them and you'll be better in a week, don't take them and you'll be better in seven days.



    Well said sir... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:44:12 PM EST
    and I figure my liver and kidneys only have so many miles on 'em, don't wanna waste any on non-recreational usage:)

    mint tea (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    (caffeine free) with honey.  That's my favorite rememdy.  It gets you water, soothes the throat, and tastes good too.  That and sleep.

    I learned some years back (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    it was better to play the prevention game re colds.  So, proper diet, daily exercise and sleep, stress levels moderate to low.  

    That's about 90% of the strategy, and I can't recall the last time I had a cold.  Probably back in the Clinton Era ...


    And avoid small children! (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 10:54:37 PM EST
    feel better! (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    I was serious, pretty good weekend - always makes monday better.  Plus I am going to live music tonight.  Something to look forward to before Friday.

    Thanks pal... (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:18:57 PM EST
    Who are you seeing tonight?

    We've got The Wailers playing BB Kings in Times Square Wed. night, probably gonna go unless this cold lingers.

    Then its look out east end LI, the Lebanese mutts are coming for the annual family reunion at my sisters...I pity the neighbors:)


    just a local (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    blues band at a local jazz bar.  Free admission, hole in the wall kinda place.  Great tunes though.

    Have fun with the family!


    Sounds like fun... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:25:19 PM EST
    Long Live The Blues and Free Music!

    I've already heard my live music (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    for today.  Chamber music coaching session this am.  A piano trio playing music of Fanny Mendelssohn, Felix's sister; and a wonderful doctoral candidate violinist coaching an 11-year old wearing maryjanes.  Terrific.

    "a summer cold" (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:07:03 PM EST
    Advil Cold and Sinus

    the kind you have to show your drivers license and sign for.


    The little video clip on Medicare (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    sounds good. OTOH there is this coming out of the Senate Finance Committee:

    Insurers could not charge more to people in poor health or to women, as they do now. But they still could charge higher premiums due to family size, geographic location and age.

    The House and the Senate health committee bills would limit age-related premiums so that a 64-year-old pays no more than twice as much an 18-year-old. But Senate Finance Committee negotiators are considering allowing as much as a 5-to-1 difference, a big savings for the young but a significantly higher cost for older people who are more likely to have health problems.    Link

    At a 5 to 1 ratio on premiums, sure sounds like I could be paying a whole lot more for my Medicare supplement.

    50 yo olds are going to get hit (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    Insurers no longer could base premiums on a person's medical history, although they still could charge more to 50-year-olds than to people in their 20s.

    I suspect 40yo may also be looking at increased fees.


    That always bugged me about the... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:51:15 PM EST
    auto insurance mandate...when something is required by law, I don't see how it is fair charge one demographic more than another.  Doesn't seem to jive with "equality under the law".

    simple (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:58:27 PM EST

    Insurance is based on risk.  Demographics with dissimilar risk should pay dissimilar prices for risk coverage.  Thats why men and 70 year olds pay more for life insurance than women and 18 year olds.

    Likewise it is unfair to expect a healthy 18 year old to pay the same or even close health care premium as a 400 pound alcoholic three pack a day smoking 80 year old.


    I'd agree if it wasn't.... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 07:55:33 AM EST
    mandated by law that you have auto insurance...then insurers could charge what they like based on their risk assesment and the customer can walk away if they don't like the rate.

    But once you are subject to a fine for not having insurance, charging different rates for different folks is discriminatory in my view.


    OTOH (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:51:45 AM EST

    Charging the same rate for very different risk is discriminatory.  Charging a rate that is proportional to the risk is not discriminatory.

    BTW, driving in many states requires insurance.  Do you think it is discriminatory for a 50 year old with a clean record to pay a lower rate than an 18 year with several speeding tickets?


    Risk assessment... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    isn't an exact science, its a guess.  That 18 year old could go another 20 years without an incident, the 50 year old could blindside a minivan and get sued for 10 million tommorow.  Besides, an 18 year old with a clean record is charged more than a 50 year old with a spotty record in my experience.

    Yeah, if there is punishment for not having insurance, it is discriminatory to charge one demographic more than other...take away the mandate and the insurance companies can charge whatever they damn well please, I don't care...as long as you aren't forced to buy it.


    Its more than a guess (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 01:24:27 PM EST

    These folks have professional standards.

    BTW, if tou think that 18 year old drivers are the same risk as 50 year olds, you have a wodnerful business opportunity to under cut the existing auto insurance companies by selling 18 year olds coverage at the same price that a 50 year old will be charged.  

    You would have only two problems.  One, the insurance commissioner would most likely in any state refuse permission to sell such an obvious scam.  Second, you would go broke.


    Wow...standards!... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    who knew?...:)

    I think you seriously underestimate the dumb luck factor when it comes to tickets and accidents.


    ridiculous comparison (none / 0) (#133)
    by sj on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    At least try your comparison to an 18 year old with a clean record (assuming 2 years licensed, plus 6 months permitted).

    Score 1 for the Insurance Lobby (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by coast on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    Given that the population above age 65 is projected to grow the greatest over the next 50yrs than any other age group, I would say that the insurance lobby will earn their keep if it remains at a 5 to 1 ratio.

    No kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by sallywally on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    and I'll be 65 in six months...

    I don't believe those congressional folks don't know this, either. And clearly the insurance folks do know it.

    This stuff is making me sicker and sicker!


    I think you have the score wrong (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    As far as I can see, the score is

     Insurance 20

     Citizens     0


    Obama isn't winning on the ... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    "medicare benefits won't be cut" argument.

    NYT in its article "A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform" has this to say:

    The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient. The providers make a plausible case that the cutbacks could inadvertently reduce beneficiaries' access to some types of care.

    And later they add:

    But some proposals could affect beneficiaries. The major bills in Congress would cut more than $150 billion over 10 years from federal payments to private health plans that care for more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries.

    Personally, I not that worried about this section of the proposal.  I think benefits will remain secure.  

    But this is not a great argument to be losing at this point.  And it may require more the packaging to clarify their position.  It may require additional language in the bill.

    "Trimming" the payments as an incentive (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:57:01 PM EST
     for efficiencies may translate into reductions in pay and benefits for nurses and other hospital workers and/or greater nurse/patient ratios-- typical corporate efficiencies. Indeed, this is already occurring at some institutions. Moreover, actual penalties, such as denial of reimbursement for a patient's care to hospitals for problems associated, but not readily provable (e.g. patient falls) during hospital stays, are already in the works. Other "efficiencies" such as jettisoning fee for service for sort of a flat fee for care have been found wanting in the advantage or HMO-type arrangements.  All of these "efficiencies" cascade to affect, if not defined benefits, certainly patient care. Rewards for real improvements in care and cost-savings would be a more productive incentive, in my view.

    Agree (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    Much better argument than what I presented.

    I was really looking forward to becoming eligible for Medicare this year since my current insurance premiums and out of pocket medical expenses are eating up much of my monthly income. Also, unlike my private insurance, the current Medicare system would not refuse to cover the care my physicians wanted me to have.

    Now I'm being to wonder if this legislation will result in Medicare becoming too expensive and denying tests etc. as well.

    Obama on unnecessary tests, language in some of the proposed legislation such as trimming Medicare payments to medical providers and reports that I might have to pay 5 times more for insurance are the basis for my concerns. Seems that they keep fueling my anxiety and their attempts at "Don't worry. Be happy" have done nothing to quite my concerns.


    Where are you getting (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 04:58:38 PM EST
    the "five times more"?  The passage you quote relates to non-Medicare private health insurance, up to age 64.  I've seen absolutely nothing about Medicare premiums going up significantly, nor about Medigap insurance.

    Your interpretation may or may not be correct (none / 0) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    The passage I quoted did not state that it is applicable only to those up to the age of 64. Medigap insurance is private insurance and nothing in that statement said that this ratio could not be applied to supplemental coverage.

    I'm not sure that I am convinced that (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    Medicare benefits will remain secure.

    The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient.

    Exactly how are hospitals and health care providers going to become more efficient to make up for the reduced payments? The result could be that more and more services would have balances above the Medicare approved amounts and require people to purchase more expense supplemental coverage for excess charges or pay for them out of pocket.



    My point is ... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    whether or not care and benefits remain secure, the WH isn't making a convincing enough argument.

    Even the New York Times isn't convinced.

    So this probably isn't just a public relations issue.  The actual language in the bill needs to be adjusted and clarified.


    The fact that fundamental (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    matters such as cutting Medicare benefits need to be denied, brings all the more into question the political wisdom of "reforming" the successful existing program for those citizens over age 65 at the same time as trying to provide a new health program for all citizens under that age.  While the Medicare program does need attention, the two programs are not seamless and changes need not be achieved in tandem.  The first national priority, it would seem to me, is to provide for health care where there is none, or where it is in need of critical reform, such as skyrocketing premiums, available only when tied to jobs, denials for pre-existing conditions and cancellations for sickness. Also, broadening of Medicaid eligibility is a critical issue to be dealt with as a part of the instant need. Many of the Medicare "reforms" can be effected through  new regulations over time and/or demonstration projects with an eye toward wider adoption.  

    There has been little WISDOM (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    employed in this whole endeavor. Tailoring this insurance package to the specifications of the insurance industry and conservative members of both parties has resulted in losing support from people who would normally be among the strongest advocates.

    Can't tax the rich. So let's cut the Medicare budget. Can't upset the insurance industry. So let's focus on health insurance rather than health care. Lets design legislation that is a trillion dollar give away to the insurance industry and eliminate any and all competition from the legislation.

    The Republicans are never going to support it and now even people dedicated to real health care reform are lining up in opposition.  


    "argument to be losing" (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    I think in general when the pres has to go on tv and say "I do not support euthanasia" its not good.

    Yup, even the NYT article ... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:31:20 PM EST
    I quoted above addressed that issue, devoting an entire section to euthanasia.

    And though they debunked the claims fairly well.  They began with the following weak statement:

    These concerns appear to be unfounded.

    They then went out to outline how they were wholly unfounded.  So I don't know why the used the phrase "appear to be."  


    Hospice (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    care is a difficult decision and family members are not infrequently at odds with one another on what the right thing is to do for a loved one: continuing active treatment or ending life with optimal comfort and dignity. It is sad to see this serious matter bruited about for political gain.  Explanations of the intent and purpose of optional consultations could have avoided some of the demagoguery as well as attenuated some of the real concerns.

    The thing is that once you qualify (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:24:13 PM EST
    for hospice care - have gotten the requisite pronouncements from physicians and you "officially" enroll in hospice - you are no longer covered for anything that does not fall into the category of "palliative" care.  I think the concern is that people will be hastened into hospice care as a way to stop "unnecessary" treatment, procedures and tests.  Once in hospice, is there any possibility that someone could be denied the ability to come out of it?  Can a person change his or her mind?

    I don't think it is completely irrational for people to fear cuts in Medicare and the ease of being qualified for hospice.  And nothing the administration is doing or saying is allaying these fears.


    Art Buchwald (none / 0) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    comes to mind.

    In my experience with and understanding (none / 0) (#92)
    by Spamlet on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    of hospice, you can leave hospice, but the time you've spent in hospice is counted against your six months of hospice benefits. So if you need hospice again, you get two months' worth of coverage. Don't know if that applies to a single calendar year or to a lifetime.

    Sorry, this was unclear (none / 0) (#96)
    by Spamlet on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 07:07:56 PM EST
    I meant to say that if you've received hospice benefits for four months, for example, then you have two months of benefits remaining.

    Does anyone have better info regarding the question raised by Anne?


    Once Chris Matthews is shrieking this (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:36:42 PM EST
    And somebody put in a provision, which is a nice, useful handle for somebody to say, "We've got social policy here and the lefties can't wait for us to start telling old people, well, it's going to cost a lot of money for you to live, so maybe you ought to be doing this other thing."

    on the teevee (h/t dailyhowler.com) ....you have already lost the argument. The stupid has won.

    It's ok though - the creative class is going to walk it back with a new web site.


    Funny how (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by coast on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:59:06 PM EST
    Congress feels that reducing payments will provide an "incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient".  Amazing how they don't see how this could apply to the government as well.

    Medicare only has ... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:15:24 PM EST
    about a 2% overhead.  That's pretty efficient.

    If there are no efficiencies to be had, (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    Then services will have to be cut to make up that money.  That's exactly what seniors fear.  

    Sorry (none / 0) (#44)
    by coast on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:29:09 PM EST
    I was speaking about the government as a whole, not Medicare specifically.

    Soros Donates $5mil to HCAN (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    In another sign of the urgency gripping the pro-health care reform camp, billionaire George Soros has pledged to sink $5 million into the fight, the group getting the money confirmed.

    Soros -- whose operation carefully guards the privacy of such donations -- made the pledge to Health Care For America Now, the leading coalition of pro-reform groups, unions and providers, HCAN chief Richard Kirsch confirmed in an email that was forwarded to me.

    Greg Seargent

    Great news (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    I was wondering if he was going to stick his toes in this.

    progress (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    and I still retain all my digits and apendages.

    cant make this stuff up (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:30:24 PM EST
    GLADNEY THE UNINSURED ACTIVIST.... Over the last few days, a conservative activist in St. Louis named Kenneth Gladney seems to have become something of a cause celebre in far-right circles. Depending on which version of events you choose to believe, Gladney either initiated or was involved in a scuffle at a town-hall event late last week.

    At least one prominent conservative blogger said Gladney was "brutally attacked" by SEIU members outside the event. After watching the video, there's ample reason for skepticism.

    Yesterday, about 200 conservative activists held a protest outside the SEIU office in St. Louis. Gladney was there -- bandaged and in a wheelchair

    Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance. [emphasis added]

    Hilarious! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    See what I mean about the Right screwing up on an almost hourly basis?

    Lately, they've been doing more for our side than we are.


    Not so hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 02:51:49 PM EST
    if his version of the story is true and SEIU members injured him.  Doesn't say much for "our side", does it?

    watch the video (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    in it he hops right up and doesnt appear to need a wheelchair at all.

    He could still be injured (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    and not NEED the wheelchair.  I'm sure he's making a statement, but I also don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that things got rough, which is completely unacceptable and does not help the message the Dems want front and center.

    At best ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:40:10 PM EST
    it was a minor scuffle.

    It wasn't police tear-gassing or beating up protesters.  Or soldiers shooting them.  Or mounted troops running them down.

    In the long-line of misconduct and inappropriate violence at protests this ranks about eight zillionth on the list.

    It was a few citizens grabbing each other and then one loses his balance and falls.

    More notable violence occurs daily between three-year-olds at nursery school.


    I thougt it was pretty funny (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    that he showed up at the SEIU protest bandaged and in a wheelchair.

    its rather cartoon like.
    I repeat its quite clear from the video that he needs no wheelchair.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    that it seems absurd, like a plaintiff showing up to trial in a giant neck brace.

    He could really be injured, of course.  I certainly can't prove otherwise.  But I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and when someone claims a bizarre injury and immediately starts attempting to parlay it into cash donations, I'm of course going to be suspicious.

    I do think it's interesting that all of the "colorblind conservatives" who have been trumpeting this man's story make such a point of mentioning that he's black.


    Sub rosa? (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 10:58:16 PM EST
    Or like the ploy ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    of a cut-rate ambulance chasing lawyer.

    Funny story (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    I had a commercial litigation case in which my co-defendant was represented by a lawyer friend whose practice normally involved personal injury cases.

    One day I had to take the train up to Albany to meet with this lawyer in order to plan the defense.  I asked him how I get from the train station to his law office.

    "Just fall down on the sidewalk and start yelling," he told me. "Someone from my office will be there right away."


    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:03:04 PM EST
    Just Like This (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    Doesn't protesting gov health coverage (none / 0) (#45)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:29:28 PM EST
    while being covered himself only suggest he has good reasoning for being against gov healthcare?  At least moreso than someone who's already covered and protesting it?  

    If he's already covered than he's a greedy hypocrite or acting from rational principals, if he's not than he's a total moron or acting from rational principals...right?  


    What? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but your comment makes no sense to me.

    The man's not covered by any health plan, is he?  He's protesting against a House plan that, so far, would probably allow him to be covered, but when faced with a medical crisis, he would rather seek private donations to cover the cost of his care?

    Isn't he, in effect, duplicating on a micro scale, the very thing he is protesting against?  If he doesn't want the government to subsidize health care via taxes, why would it be okay to cut out the middleman and just have others pay for his care?


    I'm guessing... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:53:31 PM EST
    because the middleman (Uncle Sam) takes, while private donations are made voluntarily.

    I got Sam's point...an anti-governement run healthcare person who has healthcare coverage comes off as a "I got mines, f*ck you" p.o.s. (right or wrong), while an anti-governement run healthcare person who is uninsured looks principled by comparison...aka not a piker.


    Kdog translated successfully... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 04:30:30 PM EST
    the whole post.  

    Asking for donations is nothing like single-payer or a government option.  In fact, it may even be a clever criticism (no idea though):  Perhaps the commentary here is that if proponents of government health insurance are not willing to donate the funds themselves, then perhaps they are hypocritical for advocating the funds be taken from people without thought to their personal preference.


    Stop being ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:42:59 PM EST
    the libertarian purity patrol.

    It's funny that a guy who's being used as a pawn by anti-reform advocates doesn't have health care ... full stop.


    Personally.... (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:14:29 PM EST
    I think the old timers on Medicare crying "socialism" like spoiled brats are the laugh riot...this guy might be the most principled I've seen among the antis...at least he puts his mouth where his uninsured arse is:)

    "Spoiled brats," kdog? (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 07:02:19 PM EST

    You don't think people who presumably have spent years and years paying higher and higher health insurance premiums, who finally get to enroll in Medicare, don't have a right to be worried - or have reason to be worried - that Obama and the Dems, who are mismanaging and completely screwing up this alleged "reform" process, will start nibbling away at the benefits they waited and waited for, and could end up looting it as the only way to pay for everyone else to have - wait for it - insurance, that isn't going to improve the health or the care people are getting one iota?  Not care, mind you, insurance.

    As for the "principled" and uninsured protester, let's be honest here: you'd give gold stars and high fives to anyone in opposition to the government, even if it didn't make sense.

    Listen, I hate this "plan" that has been cooked up with the help of the insurance industry, and with Obama's back-room, Chicago-style tactics; I hope it keels over dead and stays that way.  

    I hope every person who is currently on Medicare rises up like a tsunami against those who want to take the one successful single-payer health care system and cannibalize it because they are too chickensh!t to stand up against the corporate health interests and engineer true reform that will improve access to and delivery of actual health CARE the Americans.

    It isn't about I-have-mine-and-you-can't-have-it, because what Medicare recipients have could easily be had by everyone, without taking anyhing away.

    "Spoiled brats," my a$$.


    Opposing cuts to Medicare... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 07:50:54 AM EST
    is a different position than opposing a government run healthcare plan for everybody else while in a government run healthcare plan yourself...thats who I was referring to as "spoiled brats"....ya know, the people shaking in their boots over "socialism" while enjoying the fruits of socialism.  The town-hall protestors/attendees on Medicare don't wanna give it to everybody, at least how I hear 'em.

    To be clear, I was only talking about who sounds funnier or more piker-ish, uninsured anti-government person or government insured anti-government person...I think its a no-brainer.

    We all have a right to be worried and should be worried about how Uncle Sam is gonna screw this pooch....I think we're in agreement that when the smoke clears the only winner will be the insurance industry.


    They're both full of it. (none / 0) (#127)
    by sallywally on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:10:41 AM EST
    Just like the right-wing members of Congress who don't pass up their single payer government run health insurance or take their mothers off Medicare and pay the bills themselves.

    Do they get that all their lives, by the way, even after they're out of public "service"? You know, people like Newt Gingrich, Bill Tauzin, etc.

    And where's the proof that "principled" guy in the wheelchair isn't scamming folks for donations when he in fact does have insurance and/or doesn't need to use it anyway for this "injury"??


    Point taken... (none / 0) (#129)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:17:41 AM EST
    I don't know any of these people from a hole in the wall...though until proven otherwise ya can only take them at their word.

    fwiw, I regret calling the guy "principled", I should have said only compared to the socialist anti-socialists from the get go.  The wheelchair "lawsuit lottery" bit is ridiculous.


    Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 09:40:22 PM EST
    When Democrats want to use the elderly as pawns, then they're eating cat food and having to decide between their medicine and their cat food.

    But when Obama wants to cut Medicare (and I'm sorry, but that's my perception too), then it's okay to do so, and if the over-65-set are worried about what that could mean for their medical care, then they're selfish spoiled brats and the "me-me-me" generation.

    Would make me laugh if it weren't so pathetic.


    Another post tossed ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:20:54 PM EST
    in the "point missed" tray.

    Principled?  This guy?  

    Pawn?  Maybe.  Attention grabber?  Definitely.  Looking to cash-in?  Seems so.

    But principled?  Hardly.


    In comparison to... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:35:14 PM EST
    the "no soup for you" Medicare brigade?  You betcha Robo.

    Compared to somebody with no healthcare and no love for a government-run healthcare system who isn't looking to cash-in on the debate or sue somebody for brushing against him, definitely not....its all relative:)


    All Republicans, no doubt. (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by sallywally on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:14:36 AM EST
    Or Blue Dogs - same thing. Or some other form of fool

    As I heard Jed Bartlett opine this morning, "Twenty-two caliber mind(s) in a 350 magnum world."


    Cashing already begun ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:46:21 PM EST
    lawsuits to follow.

    cant make this stuff up part 2 (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:04:23 PM EST
    In my email this morning is a message from Human Events regarding the health-reform debate, warning of "government-forced extermination" of unborn children, grandmothers and grandfathers:


    Grandmas and Unborn Babies Face Extermination by Obama's "Health" Care Plan

    But my favorite part of the editorial deals with the British health-care system, which if you believe IBD is basically condemning the old and disabled to die.

    "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless," the editorial claims.

    Of course, that same Stephen Hawking who wouldn't have a chance in the United Kingdom was in fact born in the United Kingdom, has lived his entire life in the United Kingdom and lives there still today, at the ripe old age of 67.

    And lest anyone think ... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    his fame and wealth has meant he's sought care from Harley Street, he hasn't.

    During one of his recent illnesses he was treated at Addenbrooke Hospital.

    Addenbrooke Hospital is part of the NHS.


    Check out this article (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Spamlet on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:42:06 PM EST
    riddled with opinion, sexist assumptions, hearsay, disinformation, and all-around Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and dressed up like an AP news item, or maybe it should be called a news feature:

    The Clintons have always been a complicated couple. An accomplished lawyer and politician in her own right, Hillary Rodham Clinton has struggled for decades to balance her interests and ambitions against [the former president's]. She has supported his career while looking to blaze a trail of her own -- at times proud of, and benefiting from, her husband's accomplishments, and at other times frustrated by his failings and his habit of overshadowing her, friends say

    The biggest controversy of Bill Clinton's career -- an affair with a White House intern that led to impeachment proceedings -- engendered rare sympathy for his wife and helped her win a Senate seat. One of his biggest political miscues -- injecting race into her South Carolina primary with Obama -- helped seal her defeat in the 2008 Democratic primary.

    Now, if news and news features can do that, you'd think they might also be so bold as to call by its proper name--misogyny--the phenomenon behind patterns and individual incidents of violence targeting women.

    Just sayin' here in this open thread. YMMV, of course.

    Froomkin's First @ HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    The Real Obama?

    Eventually, however, a White-House brokered deal will emerge from the back rooms. And one of two things will happen.
    One possibility is that Obama, to everyone's surprise, will come out with a strong bill much like the one he promised his supporters during the campaign. It is conceivable, after all, that the reason Obama hasn't publicly issued ultimatums and twisted arms and busted heads is that he believes it's best to do those things in private -- and only when the time is truly ripe. In this scenario, which I call the Obama-as-community-organizer scenario, the community's needs are finally met, but in a way such that even those who had thwarted the people's will are allowed to save face.

    The other possibility -- well, I call that one the Obama-as-pushover scenario. In this one, Obama will come out of it having given away the store -- having neither significantly improved the health-care system nor lowered its costs, but rather having created a new entitlement that primarily benefits the health insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries.

    So far, the glimpses we've seen from behind all those closed doors suggest the latter scenario.


    I agree with Froomkin (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 07:28:56 PM EST
    from the glimpses we've seen from behind all those closed doors, Obama will chose Door #2.

    The other possibility -- well, I call that one the Obama-as-pushover scenario. In this one, Obama will come out of it having given away the store -- having neither significantly improved the health-care system nor lowered its costs, but rather having created a new entitlement that primarily benefits the health insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries.

    Will we get our ponies? (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:03:32 AM EST
    That's the first option - Obama comes through and shows that he has what it takes to deliver Change.

    The second option is the "Obama is Obama" option - make sure the Important People are happy and everybody else gets vague promises of something.


    Mike Seeger died. Pete and Peggy's (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 11:40:48 PM EST
    brother.  Obit is in LAT.

    Border Corruption.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    that passes as news?  I just assumed half the border patrol was on the take, thats just how it is under prohibition....money talks and bullsh*t rules walk.

    wingnuts never... (none / 0) (#47)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:53:17 PM EST
    let truth, facts, or reality stand in the way of their violent obsessions.

    A nice replay of 1989 (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    Apparently, these protests are not new (h/t  Volokh):

    As with today, the media had little sympathy for the protesters. The New York Times editorialized that "there's little reason to sympathize with the aggrieved affluent elderly," whose complaints were "short-sighted and narrow-minded." In the New Republic, one commentator condemned the "selfishness" of the "affluent elderly," and asked "so long as we continue to provide enormous subsidies to the affluent elderly, why shouldn't they help pay for the poor of their generation?" (You can read more, and find the sources for the enclosed in chapter four of my book on Medicare.

    It is understandable that the Administration and Congressional Democrats are unhappy with push-back to their plans. But, August is proving to be rich in ironies. The Administration of a former teacher of constitutional law is unhappy that individuals are exercising their Constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Administration of a former community organizer is complaining about community organizing. Congressional Democrats have long relied on community organizing (and union members), and are suddenly appalled at organized communities.

    And, perhaps the richest irony of all -- the organizer of the protest against Rostenkowski was Jan Schakowsky - then Director of the Illinois State Council of Senior Citizens - and currently Democratic representative from the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, and chief deputy whip to Majority Leader Pelosi. You can read Schakowsky's account of the incident, her role, and her views on the importance of citizen involvement in government here - at a lecture she gave at Northwestern's Institute for Policy Research in 2002, entitled "Why Citizen Activism Matters: The View From Washington."

    What? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    How are they "not new?"  Sorry, even Hyman can't cite examples of hate speech as egregious as those directed towards President Obama that target him as a racist, a socialist, a Nazi, etc.  Drawing comparisons to the past without recognizing the rhetoric of today is too glib.  AND it's fairly well-known that FreedomWorks is at the very least "heavily involved" with these "grassroots" efforts.

    Sure, protest is not new, I agree.  But protest with a media juggernaut behind it seems pretty new to me - as are claims that "our racist African President" wasn't born in this country.


    A small minority (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 04:41:35 PM EST
    of crazies - not everyone who is at the protests are following the "nazi" line.

    I just don't buy all the pearl clutching by the left that's going on that this is so "unprecedented" - especially when Pelosi and Hoyer say:

    These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

    But yet, the SEIU (a local) is telling its members to "drown out their voices."

    By trying to say that all these protests are organized and financed (ACORN, anyone?) and appearing to want to silence critics (even if they don't), all the Dems are doing is pi$$ing off people who may not have had an opinion one way or another, but are now getting angry.  It's prompting more people to show up at these town halls than would have had the Dems not tried the flamethrower tactic.

    Dumb, dumb, dumb.  They are going to lose this argument big time.


    A Few Crazies???? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:00:46 PM EST
    Brian Beutler reports that an anti-health care reform organizer is explicitly calling on the troops to 'carry' and if SEIU members get disruptive, to 'hurt them'."

    And Rush Limbaugh gave out the address of SEIU's St. Louis headquarters today on his show.


    Limbaugh, and Beck calling out a "few crazies". F*ck they have 20 million listeners.


    Highly unlikely (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by sallywally on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:25:21 AM EST
    that undecideds are becoming furious unless they're being punked by these noisemakers and their ilk on right-wing (and mainstream) media.

    I'd hope most people who haven't made up their minds are not influenced by a bunch of loudmouth, fact-hating and/or paid plants.

    The facts on all of this are available to help anyone make up their minds. Screaming your brains out is not a good means to fact-finding.


    You don't remember what Bush was called? (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:16:25 PM EST

    And what names was Bush called? (none / 0) (#137)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    There are crazies on both sides of the fence.

    Utter BS (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    Nice wingnut news flash, jbindc via David (medicare is the tool of the devil) Hyman  Cato institute scholar..  

    Here is CATO's plan:

    The plan (see PDF) is to eliminate employee health benefit insurance and all government health care support, and throw everyone into the private insurance market. Insurance companies would be allowed to risk-rate premiums, so that as people got older and/or sicker their premiums would go up.

    However, Cato says, this doesn't have to be a problem. The solution is ... wait for it ... insurance insurance. They call it "health status insurance," but essentially it's insurance insurance. It's a separate policy you take that will insure you against catastrophic increases in your health insurance.


    And yeah, todays protests are just like 1989. Swasticas, effigies birthers, teabaggers and all the trimmings.

    and I am sure that right wing organizers were urging these sorts of measures in 1989 as well.

    There are reports that rightwing lunatics brought guns to at least one healthcare event.

    And there are reports that rightwing activists are urging that guns be brought to other healthcare events.

    All of this is bad enough. But in addition, Glenn Beck urged his listeners not to resort to violence. Now we have that creepy grifter, Sarah Palin, calling for civility, after describing healthcare reform as "evil" and implying that Obama would euthanize her kid.



    A note of appreciation (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:27:48 PM EST
    Just wanted to thank everyone in the health-care & protest discussion on this thread. It's really gratifying to hear people try to be fair and cover both sides of the issue. There isn't much like this out on the web -- and it's appreciated!

    Complex (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:33:09 PM EST
    Especially when you have a well organized faction of the extreme right wing, who want to eliminate medicare, social security, etc, exploiting the fears of liberals who want Obama to move farther to the left..

    Makes for a very nasty mix, imo.


    Wow! (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    I haven't heard anyone in this debate say that they want to eliminate social security or medicare.  Who is saying that?

    Speaking truth to power (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 04:54:11 PM EST
    in Iran may be safe only if the speaker is a prominent cleric.  Good for Karroubi.  We are only getting glimpses into how horrible it must be there now . . . in the horror that we helped to create.

    "that we helped to create" (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:04:58 PM EST
    happened to see Charlie Wilsons War over the weekend.  its about how the congress armed the Afghans during the Russian invasion in the 1980s.
    the covert ops guy is being congratulated for how well things are going and he tells the story of the Zen Master and the Little Boy:

    Once upon a time in a village in far away China, a boy got a horse as a gift on his 14th birthday. All the villagers said, "Wow, that's great."

    But the Zen master said, "We shall see."

    Some months later as the young boy rode up the hill, he fell down and broke his leg. All the villagers said, "That's terrible."

    "We shall see," smiled the Zen master.

    A few years later all the young men in the village had to go to war. But because the young boy had bent his leg, he couldn't go. All the villagers said, "This fellow is lucky."

    "We shall see," replied the Zen master.

    those unintended consequences can be a b!tch


    That's true (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    Of course the intent was to have the Afghans bleed the Soviets. Said Soviets, at that time, being mortal enemies pledged to destroy us.

    So what we had was an "enemy of my enemy is my friend.." thing. Now, we are paying the piper.

    Of course in WWII we intervened to help the Soviets fight Germany, again as an "enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Soviets rewarded us with 50 years of "Cold War" and supporting our enemies in various proxy wars.

    So again we paid the piper.

    Too bad we didn't let the Soviets get chewed up a bit more in WWII.


    Actually I don't think we ever intended to (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    do anything and was probably surprised when it accomplished something.

    Of course my point was that IF we could go back do things based on what we know now it would be a different world in many respects.

    And yes, if we had delayed Lend Lease to the Soviets they would have been chewed up a bit more.


    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 10:49:05 PM EST
    You're giving the Republicans credit for dragging the USSR into the quagmire in Afghanistan?  I thought it was fairly well-settled at this point that the policy began with Carter and Brzezinski, prior to the Soviet invasion.

    somebody stop me (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:45:42 PM EST
    before I buy this.  or go whole hog and buy this.

    You can afford ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    $1,300 for a coffee machine?

    I think I'm in the wrong line of work.



    I Have A Krupps (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:09:07 PM EST
    That is much like the less expensive machine. I would recommend that, because the timer and all the extra bells and whistles only add to repair problems, imo.

    It is a great luxury, well worth the $$ if you can afford it.  

    Mine was packaged by Krupps and made by an italian maker, can't remember the name..


    OH (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:11:35 PM EST
    And if you do buy it, I would recommend getting an extended warrantee.

    Squeaky can too? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:13:37 PM EST
    I REALLY am in the wrong line of work.



    Well (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    I do not remotely live a bourgeois lifestyle in any sense of the word, but I do enjoy certain expensive pleasures. My espresso machine is one of them.

    Best home brewed I've had (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:35:42 PM EST
    is from my inexpensive French Press coffee maker.  

    Delivers an "expensive" taste you might say.  Almost like being in Paris.

    FP + burr grinder + very recently roasted quality dark coffee beans + filtered water.  


    Yeah (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    Those are nice, as are the simple stove top espresso pots.

    My automatic espresso machine, grinding the beans to taste, plus a choice of short (ristretto) or long (lungo), makes a much nicer cup, for me. Also just pushing a button, not messing with the beans and boiling the water is pretty convenient first thing in the day.

    I was convinced at the store by the taste. Although I get better beans that they had.. Organic too.  


    I call for a ... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:53:25 PM EST
    public coffee option!



    Mmmmm....Robust! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:28:48 PM EST
    Obamachino ... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 11:34:18 PM EST
    It's like liquid status quo!

    Yeah (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:58:01 PM EST
    Part of the drug plan. Doughnuts included..

    Dunkin' Donuts (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:13:29 PM EST
    Consumer Reports (none / 0) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:18:21 PM EST
    does not recommend extended warantees.  They rarely pay for themselves.

    Fine (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:22:53 PM EST
    In my personal experience with expensive coffee machines, extended warrantee is well worth it. Of course, only if it is at a reasonable cost.

    Seconded. (none / 0) (#122)
    by jnicola on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:59:07 AM EST
    But it's worth looking at extending the warranty via a household equipment insurer rather than buy it from the original company.

    If you like it (none / 0) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    and you can afford it, you should have it.

    You work hard, and you rescue dogs.  You deserve it.

    Who can't resist Le Creuset enameled cast iron cookware.  Of course, it will last forever and my ashes can be buried in it, but that's beside the point.  It's stupidly expensive.


    Refurbished on Amazon (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:24:55 PM EST
    If you find the one you want check Amazon to see if they have a refurbished unit. I got almost half off that way, and it comes with the original warrantee.

    I looked at the Delonghi (none / 0) (#121)
    by jnicola on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:55:01 AM EST
    but ended up with a Jura Capresso machine, which of all the bean to cup machines made the coffee that tasted most like my ideal (Entre Le Rios from Guatemala via Monmouth Street, roasted to the dark side of medium, fresh ground in a Mazzer Mini and made with a French press) and still only required me to press one button in the morning. In the last eighteen months, it's made 2300 cups without a blip. The customer service has been excellent, too, though I'm in the UK and the US experience may differ. I'd strongly recommend looking at them. Their pricing, based on what I paid for my own and a smaller one my father bought, is competitive with the Delonghi options.

    hey (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:35:53 AM EST
    thanks for all the info.  I left in a hurry yesterday so I missed all this.

    ? 4 Dark Avenger (none / 0) (#97)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 07:15:42 PM EST
    How did you manage to get a comment posted in the "Sunday Open Thread" at 7:44PM ET today when Jeralyn closed that thread to comments early this morning?

    Curious...I would think only an administrator would be able to do that.

    The comment box is still there - (none / 0) (#98)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 07:24:46 PM EST
    and while I didn't try to post a comment, I would imagine you could if you wanted to.

    Generally speaking (none / 0) (#102)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    when a thread is closed, you can still post a new comment if you want, you just can't reply to anyone else's comments.  Sort of a funky software feature.

    I know how to respond to a comment (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:14:22 PM EST
    in a closed thread. But I'm not gonna tell how. I need to have the last word every now and then ;-)

    andgarden (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:27:30 PM EST
    Digby has a post written just for you on eliminating the Senate.

    Saw it (none / 0) (#108)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:34:20 PM EST
    Lots of "kill the Senate" articles floating around this week. minipundit has been on it for a while.

    Guess I should have looked for the (none / 0) (#110)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:47:18 PM EST
    obvious :)

    I've just always thought when the "reply" link went away that the comment box did, too, and never looked.