home

Sunday Night Open Thead

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 07:57:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

BTD's post about Kathleen Sebelius and the Obama Administration's apparent capitulation on the Public Option is full. Here's another place you can continue the discussion.

Is anyone watching the season premiere of Mad Men? 41,000 have signed up to watch on Facebook so they can discuss it at the same time. I'm watching Big Brother 11, it's just getting interesting now that the worst jerks are gone. CBS kicked Chima off the show yesterday for violating the rules, so everything is up in the air.

ABC has a new show called Shark Tank where people with an idea for a business but no capital appear before five self-made millionaires to ask for a loan. The millionaires ask them questions and either opt out or offer them money in exchange for giant percentages of the business. It's not bad, as the millionaires are all quirky characters with some interesting views on money. ("Don't cry over money, it will never cry for you."

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< College Student Questioning Obama Was Republican Staffer | Will Defeat of the Public Option Kill the Health Care Reform Bill? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Night Open Thead | 132 comments (132 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Same day conflicting messages on (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    Public Option.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was "not the essential element" of the overhaul. A day earlier, Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was "just one sliver" of the debate.
    He even chided Democratic supporters and Republican critics for becoming "so fixated on this that they forget everything else" -- a dig at some liberals in his own party who have made the public option the main rallying cry of the health reform debate.

    At the same time, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of six senators involved in bipartisan Finance Committee negotiations, all but declared the public option dead in the Senate.
                                                   vs
    A White House aide said in an e-mailed statement Sunday afternoon that the president is not backing away from the public plan.

    "Nothing has changed," said Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. "The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."

    Politico

    I can't help wonder how the administration can think that all these contradictory messages will help him on this issue.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:29:18 PM EST
    I'd say the public option is dead. Several senators have said that the votes arent there and from what I'm now reading even if there was a public option the way it was set up was little more than a privitization plan.

    Forget the bill. Drop it. Kill it. Whatever. Start over and just start passing things a little at a time. I'm sure something that makes insuramce companies drop the preexisting conditions clause would pass with GOP votes therefore passing the PPUS standard.

    Parent

    I am literally sick (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kenosharick on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:55:32 PM EST
    to my stomach over this. We have lost the best chance for real reform we have ever had. Obama and the wimpy dems cave in to the repub/insurance company machine. Guess how many repub votes the final "bi-partisan" piece of crap bill will then get. I predict 1 in the senate, ZERO in the House. BTW- I know little about the "co-op" option, any hope there at all?

    Parent
    Personally doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:09:33 PM EST
    From the way things are shaping out, it looks like the Dems are not going to set up anything that could really compete with the insurance industry. Even Sen. Rockefeller is saying that he doesn't want to go that route and experiment with people's health care.  

       SCHULTZ: ...Would you sign onto a co-op? Or is that unacceptable?

        SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D), WEST VIRGINIA: That`s unacceptable, and I can almost prove it.

        We`ve been in touch with the folks that oversee all the -- represent all the co-ops in the country on all subjects, and they point out that there are probably less than 20 health co-ops in the country. There are only two that really work that well, one in Puget Sound, one in Minnesota.

        Except for those two, they`re all unlicensed. All present health co-ops are unlicensed, they`re unregulated, nobody knows anything about them, nobody has any control over them. And nobody`s ever, they said, which is a stunning thing to me, no government organization or private organization has ever done a study on what effect they might have in terms of bringing down insurance prices.

    corrente



    Parent
    So according (none / 0) (#86)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:54:05 PM EST
    to Rockefeller we can't regulate because it isn't being done now? What?!!

    We can't setup government run co-op clearing houses like a stripped down version of what Medicare does, or FEMA or on and on.

    He is so full of BS. After reading what he said I am thoroughly convinced we are getting Punked and have been watching a giant Kabuki Dance for the last few months.

    Of course it is something they HAD to appear to address because Health Care Reform was one of the top priorities of the public so they couldn't ignore it. But given that every damn one of them, GOP and Dem alike, receive big buck contributions that they use to get reelected with we know who is going to have their way and it isn't us.

    They are pretty much going through the motions with their Kabuki Dance, including Obama.

    Parent

    I'm not for co-opts (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:00:49 PM EST
    so I hope Rockefeller wins this argument.

    Parent
    I'm not for co-ops (none / 0) (#95)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:31:33 PM EST
    either. But it seems that Rockefeller is just eliminating another thing the insurance companies do not want to see. They don't want to have to offer more at a discount.

    Now if he has a better alternative than co-ops that he wants to support then I withdraw my criticism. But if he doesn't then my take is he is just another Senator that is in the pocket of the insurance companies.

    Parent

    Can't force the insurance companies (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:51:07 PM EST
    to drop the preexisting conditions clause without the mandates. Can't have the mandates without the subsidies. No way would the GOP or many Dems for that matter pass any stand alone legislation on eliminating the preexisting clause.

    Parent
    Health Care Reform (none / 0) (#64)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:55:43 PM EST
    is dead now for at least a generation. And it happened so fast this time. At least with Clinton the GOP had to pay for Harry and Louise ads and work at defeating it. This time all they had to do ws send a bunch of loudmouths to townhalls and they defeated it through free publicity.

    I posted a response to andgarden in another thread today. I brought up some things that had not been discussed and need to be thought about.

    Unfortunately BTD must have deleted it for no good reason. So I will post it belowjust for the record.
    -------------------------------
    To andgarden:

    How can you even say such a thing?

    Just what on earth can be effective with this program now? Can you answer that? I'm really curious on what you will say given that without a FEDERAL Public Option that the States must abide by in order to participate there is no federal role in Health Insurance given that it is the individual States the regulate insurance and always have.

    Is congress really going to be able to now dictate ala carte to the states? And even if they do how long will it take each state legislature to pass a new regulation that complies? So without the Public Option just what is it the Federal Government is going to provide?

    The Co-Ops that have been sneaking into the conversation are nothing more than a fig leaf. They are a voluntary program that those insurance companies that want to participate in can. How many do you think are going to abide by rules like having to insure Preexisting Conditions while lowering their premiums and cutting their profits???

    I think what people need to start realizing here is that Obama is Punking us. His every step proves that from his 'hands off' approach with congress, to yesterdays scripted double talk when less than 24 hours later Sebelius says 'hey insurance companies, no problem, no public option'. Like Obama didn't know this was going to be dropped like a bomb today when he was talking all pretty yesterday?

    The other thing for people to realize is that the watered down nothingness you may be willing to accept is all that you are going to ever see as far as Health Care Reform in your lifetimes. You accept nothingness and you are giving up the fight.

    The other thing to remember is that Obama never did want Health Care for all. He showed that in the primaries and now here we are.

    The next smoke and mirrors promise that will be dropped is subsidies because the GOP and the Nelsons will say we can't afford them. What is left then?

    I saw this coming as soon as Obama was hands off with congress. It's all going to be 'their' fault according to him and there are a whole bunch of people who will go right along with him and blame congress when Obama didn't lift a finger to strong arm them.

    Frank rich was right when he stated:

    "The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy."

    It's time to wake up people. We are getting Punked here and I personally think Obama has a hand in it - either by design or by neglect.


    Parent

    I think Medicare For All has a real (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:02:45 PM EST
    chance if we can round up a few Dems who have the guts to take it up and send it through.

    Given that what is on the table now was not slated to be implemented for another three years, there is no reason why Medicare cannot, over that same three year period, be opened up and expanded downward so that by 2013, it should be able to accomodate everyone.

    Parent

    Do you really think it has any chance? (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:18:39 PM EST
    There is so much insurance, Big Pharma etc. money being given to Congress members of both parties that I'm doubtful that anything that isn't a complete giveaway to the industries will have a chance.

    I'd really like to think you are right but......

    Parent

    I'd like to think so, (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:26:13 PM EST
    but you  are so right that there is way too much insurance and drug industry money in the mix, and that could kill anything that threatens those industries.

    Something will have to happen.  There is no way that, after all this talk about the increasing costs and the drain on the treasury, the result of killing Obamacare will be, "oh, okay, nevermind."

    People need help.  They need it now, not three years from now.  The trick will be coming up with a good plan to step into the breach that Obamacare leaves behind, and being there ready with it when it happens.

    Parent

    I'm not sure that Obamacare will (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:41:28 PM EST
    be killed. My worst nightmare is that the Buttcus bill will pass. If the Dems put an extremely expensive piece of legislation in place and people wind up in worse shape as a result, it might kill any chance of getting national health care for decades. Especially, if the so called "reforms" slated to pay for this travesty damage the Medicare program.

    Parent
    Good luck getting (none / 0) (#79)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:36:15 PM EST
    those Dems. If they are already crying over the cost of subsidies and working for the benefit of the insurance companies what makes you think they would cut out the insurance companies all together by making the government via Medicare the nations insurer?

    Oh sure some people would want to keep their private plans. But what do you think employers would do if they had somewhere to send their employees for health care that the employer didn't have to pay for. In other words the majority of America would be on Medicare and the insurance companies would largely fall by the wayside. I don't see those Dems you are hoping for doing that. I'd like to see it but realistically I don't see it happening.

    Then on top of that we have Obama saying Medicare has to change and we can't keep spending what we are. Given that I don't see him supporting adding tens of millions of people to the Medicare rolls, do you? In fact the way he talks I would see a veto of such a bill instead of support.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#114)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:37:22 AM EST
    but I think we also need to admit that if we do what you're suggesting we're not going to pass anything for another decade or so in terms of healthcare.  I mean no offense, but when in recent memory (say since 1976) have Democrats dropped a major bill, then brought it up again within 2 years and had it pass- without a massive electoral shift in their favor.

    Parent
    Just another day for a political party (none / 0) (#9)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:28:21 PM EST
    That finds it intrinsically a good thing that we don't walk in lock step like that other party.

    Of course we pay a price for our diversity and the encouragement we give each other to speak our mind honestly.

    That price is inconsistent political message, easy prey for a fickle media that likes to preface everything we say with "Bowing to pressure from the republicans....."

    Parent

    With the exception of Conrad, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:39:18 PM EST
    you have Obama and two of his spokespersons making contradictory statements in the same day. We are not talking about individual members of the party not walking in lock step. We are talking about the administration not presenting a consistent message on an important issue. Leaves doubt as to what is credible and what is not IMO.

    Parent
    Obama is simply (none / 0) (#66)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:00:52 PM EST
    setting himself up for being the Teflon Man and letting the underlings do his dirty work. That is very apparent as what the underlings are saying is not without the approval of Obama.

    This will be a huge failure for Obama and I suppose with it we deserve to lose in 2012. Of course I doubt that Obama will care much as he has now set himself up financially for life.

    Parent

    then it's Pres.__________ (none / 0) (#94)
    by mikeel on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:21:09 PM EST
    Fill in the blank.  I say it's Pawlenty.

    Parent
    I say (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:18:55 AM EST
    Romney.

    Parent
    I can see us (none / 0) (#116)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:41:08 AM EST
    losing congress because of this but Obama wont lose in 2012 (at least not because of this)- Everyone here has been saying Clinton faced a more difficult enviroment in 1994, and he won re-election, though he did suffer the worst mid-term rout in recent memory.

    Parent
    It seems Gibbs talked out of both sides of his (none / 0) (#91)
    by jawbone on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    mouth: CBS has an article which quotes him as saying Obama "is in favor of" a government run public plan, the NYTimes has him saying Obama is down with anything which provides "competition" to the BIP*.

    CBS (headline and some content has changed from earlier today; I'm using quote from earlier comment):

    White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Face the Nation Sunday that President Obama is still in favor a government-sponsored health insurance plan -- but does not intend to replicate the beleaguered U.S. Postal Service.

    The federal government would be able to successfully administer a health insurance option, Gibbs told CBS Anchor Harry Smith, even though the government-run Postal Service is facing serious financial problems.

    "I don't think he was saying that what we were going to do is create the postal service for healthcare," Gibbs said. "The president believes this option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition."

    The president intends to build on the employer-based insurance market already in place, Gibbs said. He added, though, that the public option would drive down costs and provide more options particularly for people who currently have limited options.

    NYTimes(Content has changed since earlier today; qute from earlier posting):
    I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," [Sebelius] on CNN's "State of the Union." "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition."

    Her less-than-forceful insistence on a government insurance organization was paralleled by Robert Gibbs, the president's press secretary.

    "What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

    Now, sometimes confusing the public is a tactic--seems this WH specializes in it.

    Looking at the BTD's thread today, it's amazing how some people say they "know" what Obama intends to do; others, no way, there's nothing explicitly stated by Obama. Maybe it depends on what meaning of "is" is. Or any other word Obama chooses....

    Parent

    Here's link to The Atlantic (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:05:41 PM EST
    Ambinder

    Parent
    That article made it clear as mud (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:49:27 PM EST
    Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.

    Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That's been interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn't exactly a walk-back -- the White House, Gibbs included, have mused favorably about the co-ops before.

    I guess a public option an essential part of reform except when it is just one sliver of it or only on days when not musing favorably about co-ops.

    But then again Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" or maybe not.

    A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn't misspeak. "The media misplayed it," the third official said.

    Gee, I'm glad that they provided clarity.

    Parent

    WI Gov Jim Doyle not seeking re-election (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:10:06 PM EST
    I am not a Candidate to replace him. If nominated I will not accept.

    The hours suck, and I don't want a State Patrol security detail following me around.

    I remain a Candidate for the US Senate seat in 2012.

    Thankless job these days (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:28:21 PM EST
    Who do you expect to run against in 2012? Tammy?

    Parent
    Herb hasn't said he's retiring (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:33:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Think he will? (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:38:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Everyone assumes it, but... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:49:15 PM EST
    We had a conversation at the State Democratic convention in June. Told him I was running again, "You ran a classy race last time. I'm looking forward to it."

    Parent
    I have to think you're on to something (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:53:32 PM EST
    with running against these folks; you do us all a public service. Thanks

    Parent
    Iron Chef America for me, (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:13:56 PM EST
    to be followed by HGTV Design Star.  Sunday night is not a night for TV that gets my brain all in a dither.

    Twenty-nine years ago today, I married my Republican husband; yes, we can all get along!  We had a quiet day, which is perfectly in keeping with who we are.  An excellent dinner of lamb chops, fresh white corn, tomatoes picked 10 minutes before we ate them, salad, and a robust white wine; it was delish!

    Cheers to all!

    Congrats (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    Many more to come. The dinner sounds great.

    I have a different kind of anniversary today -- 38 years ago today I moved to Colorado. Where did the time go?

    Parent

    Happy Anniversary (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:20:08 PM EST
    That is bipartisanship that I can support. :)

    Haven't eaten dinner yet and you are making me hungry.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:31:23 PM EST
    to both you and Jeralyn.

    Funnily enough, the "secret ingredient" on Iron Chef America tonight is corn...

    I am always blown away by these chefs coming up with five courses that incorporate an ingredient they only learn about 60 minutes before thier dishes are submitted for judging.

    Guess that's why they're chefs!

    Parent

    I doubt you'd be too surprised... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Tony on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:52:02 PM EST
    to learn the chefs aren't exactly first finding out about what the secret ingredient will be at the start of the show :)

    It's my understanding that both the Iron Chef and the challenger are given a list of five ingredients which may possibly be the secret ingredient in advance.

    Parent

    Congrats (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:31:57 PM EST
    I'll make it to 29 years in about 6 more years. Right now I'm looking forward to the 25th. Did you do a big celebration for your 25?


    Parent
    Thanks, Georgia (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:37:55 PM EST
    No, we didn't do anything major - just out to dinner, as I recall.

    We're not really into big whoop-te-do celebrations, but I am harboring an idea that might see us taking our daughters and their men (one husband, one getting-close-to-fiance) to Bermuda, which is where we honeymooned, for our 30th.

    We'll see, but I think it would be great fun!

    Honestly, with so much divorce, I feel so blessed to be happily married for so long.

    Congrats to you, too, for so many years together!

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:46:35 PM EST
    sounds like a great celebration for your 30th!!!

    Yeah, it is kind of freakish to be married this long and to top that off we were married 7 years before we had any children.

    Parent

    Not freakish at all. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:59:35 PM EST
    It's wonderful; think about the gift it is to your children, who have both parents together.

    Two years ago, when our daughter got married, everyone from the DJ to the caterer to the minister remarked about how unusual it was to have a couple with parents that were still married to each other.  I thought that was so sad, really, that we were unusual.

    We've had our ups and downs - that's life! - but love keeps us together.

    I'm pretty happy about that!

    Parent

    Congratulations, Anne (none / 0) (#36)
    by caseyOR on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:01:35 PM EST
    And here's hoping for at least 29 more great years together.

    Parent
    Thanks, casey! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:08:46 PM EST
    What a hoot it would be for us all to be here in 29 years, for my - 58th! - anniversary.

    My husband and I would be 90 and 85, respectively, but maybe with a really good health care system, we can make it that far!

    Parent

    It could happen. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:17:03 PM EST
    Both my great-grandparents and my grandparents lived into their nineties. My grandparents were married 65 years.

    I was visiting around the time of my grandparents 62nd anniversary. Grandma and I were talking about how they had managed to stay together all that time. She told me that they certainly had some hard times, but in the overall scheme of things, "What's a bad year here and there?"

    Parent

    Perhaps you will submit a piece to (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:06:57 PM EST
    "Modern Love" in NYT Sunday Style section.  I'd read it.

    Parent
    Congrats Anne (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 09:12:40 AM EST
    Sounds like a heavenly dinner too.

    Parent
    Thanks, Tracy - (none / 0) (#132)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    it was a delicious dinner - sometimes it all just works out perfectly!

    How's the head?  Thought of you this morning when I heard that Tropical Depression What's-Her-Name made landfall this morning in the Florida panhandle - thought maybe you - like me - have a head that is sensitive to changes in barometric pressure, and were close enough in Alabama to be affected by it.

    Hope you're feeling better!

    Parent

    My head is good today (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    I'm grateful, a reprieve and hopefully I can that appointment squeezed in before peanut harvest starts.  Barometric pressure does affect me but oddly not so much around sea level down here.  It affected me very noticeably in CO, must have something to do with elevation and dropping pressure.  Perhaps the pressure drops accompanying storms is greater in CO with the storms coming over the mountains.  I've only had one migraine while here due to storms and that was a hurricane a few years back when very heavy bands were going over the top of us.

    Parent
    Tell me about it! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 09:21:06 PM EST
    I pretty much dread when they talk about a front coming through.  There's got to be something to the whole elevation/mountains thing.  

    Or, it could be that being at high altitude and the accompaning thin blood has an increased effect on those predisposed to migraines.  

    Whatever, all I know is its the suxxor.  

    Parent

    Senator Conrad (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:18:06 PM EST
    talked up co-ops and mentioned Group Health in Washington state as a model of a successful co-op.

    OMG.

    I know someone  here really likes Group Health and I don't intend to offend, but OMG.

    I did a short stint with Group Health of Puget Sound when I was in my 20's.  I had the choice of two primary care doctors because those were the only two taking patients.  I was literally afraid to be alone in the room with the doctor I chose. He was socially inadequate, we'll say, and looked and smelled like he hadn't bathed in several days. I left gyn issues untreated, because I refused to see him for them.

    I had to wait 6 months for a simple eyeglass appointment.  

    I changed jobs, in part, to get different insurance.

    If Group Health is the co-op model, I'll stick with my ridiculously expensive for the low payout insurance.

    If I'm not mistaken, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    isn't this the group others have referred to as "Group Death?"

    Your description of the doc you were assigned to makes my skin crawl.

    There has to be something better.

    Parent

    Definitely (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:39:29 PM EST
    Group Death.  I've heard that too.  

    I know some people are happy with their Group "Health" coverage; however, they're typically located in rural areas where local doctors contract with the Group Health organization.  Here in the Seattle area, enrollees are stuck with doctors who are apparently direct employees of the org.

    Parent

    Not what I hear from eastside members (none / 0) (#60)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:46:06 PM EST
    They are often sent to private doctors for treatments!

    Parent
    This again (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:18:38 PM EST
    must have occurred after the closing of the Redmond Group Health hospital or soon before.

    Parent
    Not sure what you're getting at (none / 0) (#75)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:22:25 PM EST
    The decision by GH to close their hospital was because they felt contracting the inpatient work to another facility was the most cost-effective thing to do. Of course those two events happened simultaneously.


    Parent
    I was getting at (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:45:40 PM EST
    that the Redmond hospital closed, and now to keep East Side customers, Group Health apparently doesn't make them go all the way to Seattle, but instead contracts with East Side doctors.  That's good.  I implied nothing else.  But now that you mention it, one has to wonder why they considered it more cost effective to close than to retain their own facility with their own cost containment.  The fact is that Group Health Redmond Hospital closed because their patient load was decreasing.  The hospital was more than 2/3rds empty on most nights.  It closed because it was a failing hospital.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Based on my own experience, I want nothing to do with any organization that models the Group Health co-op.  If that's what my congressional representatives vote for, I will not vote for them!  You feel differently.  Fine with me.

    That's what makes the world go round.

    Parent

    This again (none / 0) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:18:45 PM EST
    must have occurred after the closing of the Redmond Group Health hospital or soon before.

    Parent
    Don't judge prematurely (none / 0) (#58)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:44:12 PM EST
    Let's see if another local commenter has more recent experience with Group Health. I would be willing to give them another chance if my employer offered them as an option because of what I hear today from people who are members.

    I sure can give some horror stories on the private insurances and medical facilities in the same area after having worked for BC for a year recently, and being medical advocate for both of my parents over the past year.

    Parent

    I think if you research it, you will (none / 0) (#53)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:32:10 PM EST
    find Group Health is entirely different today than it was 20+ years ago. I, too, had GH for a short while decades ago and found it dreadful, but their entire business model is different now.

    I still have no first hand experience with the current program, but I know people who have it as their insurance, Physician's Assistants who work there, nurses who work there, and seniors who have it as their primary with Medicare as their secondary. I haven't heard anything negative about them in years....and, believe me, I couldn't SAY enough negative about them decades ago.

    You know that Overlake Hospital is their inpatient contractor, right? They readily send their members to private doctors/specialists when they can't handle something soon enough.

    I'm not willing to discourage people from being open to researching them because of what I experienced decades ago. It could be a perfect healthcare plan for the country to start UHC with.

    Parent

    I have a friend (none / 0) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:46:01 PM EST
    whose daughter was diagnosed recently by a Group Health doctor with polycystic ovarian syndrome -- without doing any imaging studies or blood work.  They apparently "just knew".

    The child is pretty miserable.  The treatment (birth control pills) isn't working.

    I'm sure people have good stories too.  My experience 20 years ago ensures I'll never do business with them again.

    I assume the involvement of Overlake came after the closing of the Redmond Group Health Hospital? Overlake is good for some things, bad for others.  My FIL loved his post-heart-attack treatment at Overlake.  My MIL's oncologist recommended that she NOT have radiation at Overlake even though it was the closest hospital, that she instead go to Swedish or Evergreen.  She went to Swedish.

    Parent

    Well, based on personal experiences (none / 0) (#62)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:53:43 PM EST
    Evergreen will never have another member of my family treated by their doctors, clinics or hospital after the incredible incompetence shown by everyone associated with my mother's treatment.

    You can find an event that makes you cringe in every single system.

    GH contracted Overlake for inpatient because it was more cost-efficient for the members, much the way UW is subcontracted to be the medical staff and facility for the VA.


    Parent

    I think this is why (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:58:21 PM EST
    the doctor-patient relationship has to be at the center of health care.

    If you have a doctor you trust, you should be able to keep that doctor.  Period.  End of discussion.

    Parent

    The problem (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:27:19 PM EST
    The problem is that with co-ops  such as Group Health, members are more severely limited than usual in the doctors/hospitals they can even use.

    With my expensive, low payout insurance, I can use any hospital I want....and after I meet the $3000 deductible, they pay 70% (LOL).  At least I'm not stuck with one or two hospital choices as I would be if whatever co-op the goofballs in Congress enacted modeled Group Health.

    Parent

    You don't know that (none / 0) (#83)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:43:17 PM EST
    If you are against UHC, fine.

    It seems to me that if a co-op ends up being the starting point for UHC, it will open up all hospitals to participate.

    Parent

    The notion (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:01:33 PM EST
    that because I don't like Group Health that I'm against UHC is ridiculous and quite a leap.

    I won't discuss this further.  My insurance isn't good enough to risk raising my blood pressure.

    Parent

    Sounds like France (none / 0) (#54)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:34:15 PM EST
    Our dear friends from France were visiting last weekend. The Dad desperately needs a new glasses prescription and new glasses.  He said the wait in France is 9 months.  So he's going to do it here, while he's in the US.  He's thrilled to be able to get new glasses and be again able to read a menu and see well enough to drive at night.  He'd MUCH rather pay for the exam than wait the 9 months.  In France he doesn't have that option.  

    Parent
    I don't believe this at all. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:33:37 PM EST
    In the US most people don't have vision coverage at all and when they do, routine eye exams are covered only every two years.

    Parent
    My vision care plan covers (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:34:47 PM EST
    routine eye exam once a year.  But nothing further from the opthamologist.

    Parent
    Lucky you, then. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:51:26 PM EST
    I've never had coverage for routine exams.

    Parent
    You don't believe (none / 0) (#104)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:34:12 AM EST
    What?  That my friend is willing to pay $200 for an eye exam and new glasses rather than wait 9 months in France for an eye exam?  He still has to pay for glasses there.  I can assure you, it's the truth.  He likes their health care in France but was complaining about the waits.  

    My health plan covers yearly eye exams, but not my contact lenses.  

    Parent

    I did find that very hard to believe (none / 0) (#112)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:31:36 AM EST
    but I've done a little more research on French websites and it appears that there aren't enough opthamologists in France.  My apologies.

    Of course if I call for an appt. with my local eye physician, it's about a 3 month wait for a routine exam...

    Parent

    I Was Thinking (none / 0) (#120)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    It might be the French equivalent of too few doctors for too many people.

    I've had American friends in both sparsely populated rural areas and in teeming metropolitan areas that have (what seem to me in a medium sized metropolitan area) incredibly long waits for non urgent types of medical care.

    Parent

    France can assign doctors (none / 0) (#129)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    To various areas so they don't have the shortages in rural areas that we have here.  Still, more French doctors want to go to Paris and the Riviera, of course.  

    Parent
    Nine months for an eye exam and glasses? (none / 0) (#130)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:33:22 PM EST
    I know we have problems in rural areas, but I've not heard of those kinds of waits.  I know it happens in some rural parts of Canada but have not heard of those kinds of waits in the US.  

    One persons' non essential exam is not the same as the next persons' non essential exam.  Not being able to see is somewhat essential, for most people.  

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#128)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:28:43 PM EST
    I've never had to wait more than a week or two to for an eye exam.  But I've never had to see an ophthalmologist.  Maybe that's the difference.  My friend from France said that only ophthalmologists can do eye exams there.

    Thanks for verifying my story.  I appreciate you doing that research.  

    Parent

    I watched (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:29:37 PM EST
    Michael Vick on 60 minutes as part of what TMZ (my favorite comedy site) calls his "don't throw fruits and veggies at me apology tour".  Who knows.  Maybe he really is sorry.  Maybe there's some humanity in there somewhere?  If nothing else, he's raising awareness for the Humane Society.  

    Animals can be rehabilitated.  Hopefully animal abusers can too. Only time will tell.

    TMZ had another good point.  Phillie is a tough crowd.  This is the same fan base that boo'ed Santa Claus.  Going to Phillie might be good punishment.

    A quick overview (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:00:44 AM EST
    of dkos on health care reform:

    The public option is dead!
    versus
    It's not dead yet!
    versus
    Something is better than nothing!

    Missing is "Obama is our man!  He will go to the mat for us!"
     

    Bill Clinton Reads Your Blog (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    and sends you a handwritten note, sharing a list of the books he's reading.

    That's gotta make your day, right?

    Watching No. CA. v. So CA in (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:24:51 PM EST
    W. Regional Little League Finals.

    Chima (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:27:40 PM EST
    was raped by Dale Devon Scheanette, the bathtub rapist/serial killer (verified with semen DNA analysis when he was caught).  She fought him and he didn't kill her.

    I think she has "self-destruction" issues.  Wonder if the rape has anything to do with it.

    She talked about it last week (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:36:40 PM EST
    on the show. Said he was put to death. She talked about getting past it and not being permanently victimized or something like that.

    I think she flipped out yesterday because her plan to get Russell out got turned on her with Jeff getting the coup d'etat and she lost her power in the house. She got outmaneuvered big time. She really thought she had a chance of winning and could boss everyone around and in five minutes everything changed and realized she's out of contention. Her screaming "terrorist" non-stop last week at Russell was definitely hard to watch.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:03:19 PM EST
    Bizarre behavior....inappropriate behavior for the situation...self destructive behavior.....

    Parent
    Here's what happened (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    according to Jokers Updates which follows the live feeds and transcribes much of what happens (and yes, they are reliable):

    Chima broke numerous BB rules: racist comments, non-compliance with production and destruction of BB property, for starters. Spoiler Alert: After Jeff won the coup d'etat power and Jesse who was voted out, Michelle became the new HoH and put Chima and Natalie up for eviction, at which point Chima freaked out & became the evil houseguest. She refused to wear her microphone ("I'm not mike-ing up" a la Cindy Anthony, lol) and threw her whole mike-pack into the hot tub (a big BB no-no to mess with your mike, supposedly $4000 to replace!). And she kept cussing out the BB production team, screaming & yelling and flipping off the cameras. She'd also made numerous racial slurs about Russell, said he was an "extremist Muslim terrorist," that "Russ is a terrorist and I am the Twin Towers" and that Americans hate Middle-Easterners so he'll never win. Russell happens to be Catholic and Lebanese (Danny Thomas was Lebanese & I was very young when his show was on but I don't recall him being a terrorist, lol). Chima had also stolen Russell's rosary, which was later found in her belongings after she was expelled by exec producer Allison Grodner, who had to go over to the BB house at 2am because of Chima's behavior. Apparently Grodner still tried to keep Chima in the house but Chima kept screaming at Grodner, and that was the end for Chima.


    Parent
    This is waaay more complicated (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:59:27 PM EST
    than health care reform!

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#90)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:03:33 PM EST
    I saw that.  I love Joker's Updates.

    Parent
    I'm amazed (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:09:23 AM EST
    that there's even one other person besides me who reads both TalkLeft and Jokers Updates (although I'm more partial to FORT when it comes to the Bachelorette.)

    Parent
    True! (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:22:17 AM EST
    Joker's Updates is even more suprising.  Imagine blogging the Big Brother live feeds essentially 24 hours a day....and I thought I had no life ;-).

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#103)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:24:06 AM EST
    I've also become a TMZ junkie.  The site cracks me up, pure brain candy.

    I don't watch Bachelorette.  Haven't been able to get into it.  Maybe someday.

    Parent

    Ooops, (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:00:25 PM EST
    I mean ALLEGEDly raped.  He was not tried for her rape.  He was convicted for the murder of Wendie Prescott.

    Parent
    Not an uncommon story. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:05:08 PM EST
    We had an alleged serial rapist (multiple DNA matches in two states) opt for suicide by semi.   The suspect apparently attempted to flee, was pursued onto the highway by the police and then according to all accounts, he drove deliberately straight into a head on collision with a rig.

    I really felt for the truck driver, who was pretty shaken up by the incident.

    Parent

    here's the story (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:16:32 PM EST
    on Chima and the guy.

    Parent
    Mad Men (none / 0) (#10)
    by sher on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:28:30 PM EST
    and Manhattans w/ Maker's Mark

    That's bourbon, right? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:32:49 PM EST
    I'm doing Absolut Citron and wondering how much longer I will be able to type, lol.

    Parent
    Vodka drinker myself: Stoli (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:37:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Cheers! (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:44:37 PM EST
    I have to confess that you could put a drink in front of me and I would have no idea whether I was drinking the good stuff or something normally drunk from a paper bag.

    I do think this Absolut is kicking my a$$ right now, so maybe there is a difference, lol.

    Not that I normally drink cheap vodka wrapped in a paper bag...

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    I'm a lightweight anyway. The CW--that I've found to be true--is that Jews don't drink, we eat. . .

    Parent
    I would have tto say that (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:50:03 PM EST
    I would much rather allocate calories to good food than to drink.

    Parent
    Watching Jacques Pepin (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:28:03 PM EST
    work with chocolate right now. I don't know why I do this to myself. . .

    Parent
    Ketel One (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:50:11 PM EST
    vodka for me.

    Parent
    Heheh (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:30:55 PM EST
    Ab Fab:  "I've got Stoli babe!"

    Not a vodka fan but I am a fan of vodka fans!  :)

    Parent

    Yes, it's bourbon (3.00 / 2) (#17)
    by sher on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:34:26 PM EST
    and I thought it would be appropriate for Mad Men cocktails

    Parent
    Another bourbon drinker here. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:06:30 PM EST
    My parents, both New Deal Democrats, taught me that Dems drink bourbon, which is made by American workers, and Republicans drink Scotch. I remain true to my upbringing.

    I am also fond of a good gin martini, a drink that seems appropriate for Mad Men viewing, also.

    Parent

    Have to love that Vodka (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:54:41 PM EST


    Parent
    I've been on a martini streak (none / 0) (#42)
    by addy on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:10:07 PM EST
    For the last few weeks. Don't know why, usually it's wine. But coming home from a loooong day at work and shaking up a martini boosts me rather nicely. One is my limit, or I start Googling pictures of Ciarán Hinds and things get silly.

    Parent
    If I did martinis, I would (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:12:59 PM EST
    be on my a$$ 20 minutes after walking in the door.

    Not that that sometimes isn't exactly where one wants to be, but most nights, it would be just kind of embarrassing. lol.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by addy on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:16:25 PM EST
    exactly. Thus, only one.
    Now when I'm out...okay that would be untrue. I'm just as much as a lightweight when we go out as when I'm in. One at dinner is plenty. Two is, as you say, embarrassing.

    Parent
    Like Anne I don't think I could (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    function after even one martini.

    In my heyday I could drink several vodka and tonics. Now I'm a real light weight when it comes to alcohol. To be a successful drinker you have to stay in practice and I'm woefully out of shape in that department.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by addy on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:28:14 PM EST
    although even in my prime days of alcohol consumption I was able to embarrass myself pretty well. That, at least, came without practice.

    Parent
    Been there. Done that. (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:39:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks for the reminder (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:36:23 PM EST
    I'm meaning to get into that show this year. Season pass set!

    Parent
    Congress' health care bills... (none / 0) (#12)
    by mikeel on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 08:31:16 PM EST
    ....not so popular now.

    My biggest beef with Obama's health care strategy was deferring to a Congress that's very unpopular.

    He had to take the lead, and didn't.

    Capitulation never works; it's just a sign of weakness.

    Conditions in the country were favorible to (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    enacting single payer or really good health care legislation. Opportunity lost. The question now is how long before another opportunity appears.

    Parent
    Obama hasn't figured out (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:00:49 PM EST
    that you can't delegate leadership.

    Obama has nominated some excellent people.  I don't think we'll see a Heckuva Brown scandal/disaster in this administration.

    But picking good people is not enough!  You can't hand pick Congress.  Obama has to deal with the Congress he has.

    Parent

    Did you see Doonesbury today? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:04:47 PM EST
    Seems appropriate for your comment...

    August 16, Doonesbury

    The presidency is not something that adapts well to micromanaging.

    Parent

    Has Trudeau dealt with (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:42:25 PM EST
    health care reform?

    Parent
    Congress is something (none / 0) (#105)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:32:11 AM EST
    that adapts well to the Really Big Stick approach - just ask the GOP, Tom "The Hammer" DeLay and George "With Us Or Agin Us" Bush.

    It's not necessary to use this approach for every piece of legislation, but the President shouldn't be afraid to use it when the fat cats refuse to move the warm spot in front of the lobbyist's fireplace.


    Parent

    Caveat to that (none / 0) (#119)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    Congress follows the Big Stick- when its wielded by a Republican, when its wielded by a Dem we get a situation like Carter-Kennedy, Clinton-Newt, Obama-Blue Dogs, the last Dem who could drop the hammer on congress and get away with it was LBJ.

    Parent
    You get hit by an uninsured driver? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:20:42 PM EST
    I have a dozen questions for why you had no other options, but only if the driver who was at fault in the accident was insured.

    driver was insured (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by dissenter on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:42:39 PM EST
    But bare minimum that paid next to nothing. Then when he was convicted in court for the accident (talking on a cell phone and failing to notice the cars were backed up on the highway at a standstill for four miles) he filed bankruptcy and presto....doesn't have to pay a thing. My car insurance decided to fight my health insurance company over the whole thing leading to even more delays, inaction and non-payment. Did I get some insurance payment from my insurance? yes but it didn't begin to cover the costs of two operations on my head and because I only had the hospital approved not the doctor I got stuck with the majority of those bills.

    This by the way was the Group Health in DC/VA

    Parent

    Lousy situation (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:45:51 PM EST
    We're a mandatory insurance/mandatory minimums state for auto ins. Not to say that plenty of people don't drive uninsured, but routine traffic stops often include having to show your insurance card...no card, $500 ticket that can only be dropped if you show up with proof of insurance.

    I carry "uninsured motorist" coverage, and the maximum PIP simply because I couldn't handle having happen to me what happened to you. Had I been where you are, I would have been standing next to the guy filing bankruptcy right along with him.

    Hope his insurance at least covered the damage to your car!


    Parent

    Speaking of Tom Delay (none / 0) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:22:25 AM EST
    He will be on Dancing with the Stars next time.  No link, but it's all over the news.

    Apparently, they'll have 15 contestants to start and they'll do several double eliminations to bring that number to half.  They're calling this elimination strategy a "Dancing with the Stars bloodbath". LOL, bloodbath in evening gowns.  Too funny.

    Yes, I'm definitely watching.  With any luck, Delay will meet Tucker Carlson's DWTS demise.

    I'll be cheering for (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    The Chairman and the football player :)

    I can't believe they stuck us with Delay.

    Parent

    My pick (none / 0) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    is Donny Osmond.

    Parent
    I think he'll do well (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    I just happen to like food and football, lol!~

    Parent
    And I'm stuck in (none / 0) (#115)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    my childhood fantasies. LOL.  I was going to marry Donny Osmond, you know. ;-).

    I'm always amazed when football players do poorly on DWTS....although they've also had some winners.  It's something of a dichotomy.  

    Parent

    The winners (none / 0) (#121)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:07:18 AM EST
    were guys who retired without major leg injuries- I'm guessing that with research you could probably make a mint betting on jocks- Yamaguchi, Emmitt, etc.

    Parent
    Speaking of football players (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:42:31 AM EST
    Watch out AFC - Brady is back.  And looking as good as ever.  On and off the field.

    He has repaid the karma gods and we are in for another super bowl.  You heard it here first.

    Hopefully... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 10:52:20 AM EST
    Bart Scott and the rest of Gang Green has something to say about that!  

    Parent
    I'm sure they will (none / 0) (#122)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:35:39 AM EST
    say plenty.  But I doubt there is much they can do :)

    Parent
    We shall see... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:43:43 AM EST
    come Week 2 at The Meadowlands my friend...our offense is in for struggles but I think our D should be uber-tight.

    I really need the season to get going...anything to escape putridity that is the NY Mets organization.  

    Parent

    Tell me about it (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    The sox just got bumped from the wild card spot and the yankees are soaring.

    Football season cannot get here soon enough.

    I have determined though, that I am not a big enough fan to get into pre-season games.  They're fun to talk about, but I just don't care enough to sit down and watch the whole thing.  Plus, it feels weird to be watching football when it's 80 degrees outside.

    Parent

    Same here... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:58:36 AM EST
    I'm a huge fan and I can't really watch any preseason except the third game, when starters play significant time.  The quality of play just ain't there with guys headed to the practice squad or real jobs getting all the reps.

    The preseason is too long, 2 games would suffice, but its all about the Benjamins...with season ticket holders "forced" to buy all the preseason game tix and all.

    Parent

    I had it on in the background (none / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    the funniest parts were when some no-name rookie screws up and they show bill's face and the announcers all say (and you know by the face) "he's not gonna make the team this year".


    Parent
    Usually... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    the announcers drop the "bagging groceries this time next week" line when that happens:)

    Parent
    Sunday Night Open Thead | 132 comments (132 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment