Friday Afternoon Open Thread

More curling at the Olympics. Jeralyn has the hammer now for posting the rest of the day.

This is an Open Thread.

Update 5:30 MT (Jeralyn): Just got back from court, I'll check the news and if anything happened, I'll be posting tonight, and have an open thread. Thanks, BTD!

< Up Or Down Vote On The Public Option | Weiner: Have An Up Or Down Vote On Public Option >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    its always about tubbys rights (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    how about the right of the person who paid good money for the seat the fatso is taking up half of.

    I blame the airlines... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:50:31 PM EST
    I mean I'm a 150 lb. rail and I barely fit in those sardine cans they call seats back in coach, never mind my more portly brethren.

    Give us some seats designed for 21st century human beings...if it costs more for a ticket so be it.  Then lets see where we are at.


    nice idea (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    but in the world we live in, if your a$$ takes up two seats.  buy two seats.

    It's a reasonable argument... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    to be sure...I guess this issue is a further down my list of unfriendly skies gripes.  The security nonsense causes me the most discomfort.

    dude (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    I promise you, if you got stuck next to the guy in the photo, or worse, stuck between two of them, it would rise on your list.

    I have been running good... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:04:44 PM EST
    in the airplane seat lottery lately, not that I fly often.

    Last time the girl next to me laid a valium on me...sweet girl, and well within her seats confines:)  Random acts of kindness are especially needed in and around airplanes...now more than ever.


    Interesting to compare requirements (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    for redesigning classrooms today.  When doing so, we end up having -- by law -- to to remove many seats from classrooms, as the average size of the student today is just so much larger.

    Let's just put those requirements upon airlines.


    that is just so sad (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    and someone the other day was talking about what a waste of time M. Obamas work with childhood obesity is.

    it doesnt sound like a waste of time.


    Not that sort of size. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:47:24 PM EST
    Students are just larger -- taller, bigger-boned, etc.  I rarely see obese students.  Most I see are just so darn healthy, actually, despite the way that they don't take care of themselves as I wish they would, having seen how fleeting is youth.

    I trust that Michelle Obama -- I believe this is her cause -- has trustworthy data.  I just don't see such students.  

    Btw, I think that students today need even more room than allotted by requirements, because of all that they have to heft in their backpacks.  That may be part of what keeps them healthy.  It looks like serious weight-lifting.


    I would be curious to know (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    what part of the country you are in.  I am in the midwest and here the problem is not hard to find at all.

    I'm just a bit north of you in Chicago (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:20:17 PM EST
    and yes, I see lots of seriously overweight people -- but not among my students.

    Some would be considered heavyset elsewhere in the country, but that is a lack of recognition of the ethnicity of so many Midwesterners.  Go to Germany, go to Poland, and it is evident that it is not the result of Americanization.  

    It's nice when we go to New York and can see over the heads of most of the crowds when walking down the street, when watching parades there, etc. :-)


    I was wondering how... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:13:40 PM EST
    today's kid was fitting into those old wrap-around desks.

    I think that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:55:10 PM EST
    a reasonable rule might be- if you can't buckle the seat belt and need an extension, you buy two seats.  Now, what do we do about the man who insists on crossing his legs such that his knee is halfway into your space (it happens all too often)?  Not to mention the people (and in my experience, it has been mostly men) who plant their elbows on the entire armrest and jab you in the ribs the whole flight?  And believe me, I have some sympathy for taller men- my husband is 6'5" and does suffer on long flights in coach, to the extent that, when we fly together on any flight over two hours, I book my seat right in front of his, because he knows I won't tilt the seat back and crush his knees.  ;-)  (And, while we're at it- ladies, for pity's sake, don't drench yourself in perfume before you fly.)

    not just ladies (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    recently I had to sit next to a guy who had on so much Stetson I smelled like that crap until I took a shower.

    Damn... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:00:38 PM EST
    we could hit 200 comments on airline gripes alone...sh*t comedians eat because of the airlines.

    The perfume is a killer...the metrosexual fellas are just as bad, bathing in that garbage.  If people can wear that sh*t I should be allowed to smoke:)


    I would rather (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:02:52 PM EST
    smell a cigar than Stetson.   and I hate cigars.

    There's one signature... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    on the petition!

    We could even do smoking/non-smoking, perfumes/no-perfumes, Over/Under 2 bills flights....anybody got a couple billion to invest, this one is a winner I think:)


    BION - United Airlines (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:37:32 PM EST
    use to have "Smoker" flights between Newark and Ohare... Single class of service, free wine and cigars were passed around... and an all female flight attendants.

    Smoke what, kdog? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:08:15 PM EST

    On Utopian Airlines.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    whatever the hell you want Z:)  

    in 1971 (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    I flew Icelandic Airlines to Europe.  at the time it was called HipHop airlines because only hippies took it and they flew propeller planes up to Iceland and then hopped over to Europe.  yes I flew a propeller plane over the atlantic.

    anyway, it was not called HipHop airlines for nothing.  we smoked all manner of things on the way over.  and drank Jack Daniels.  hard to believe in todays world of travel but absolutely true.


    Actually... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:53:59 PM EST
    such a customer friendly airline as Icelandic is kinda easier to believe than the current travel situation...the current would be unbelievable if we haven't all seen it with our own eyes.

    Moms always said I was born a generation late...I really missed the boat:(


    Waiting to board a flight (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:51:19 PM EST
    To Philly for a weekend with friends. Delayed 40 min so far.

    I have the problem with my knees hitting the seat in front of me. I find that a well timed cough does wonders when they lean back. With my height, the top of their heads is right under my nose. Hope I don't have to resort to that this flight!

    Looking forward to seeing what these NE blizzards look like in person.


    Coughing on their heads! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    LOL!  My son, who is tall like his father, jams his knees into the seat back in front of him when they start to tilt it back- it prevents the seat back from moving, and after awhile, they give up, thinking the mechanism is broken.  I think I'll suggest the coughing to him, though- less of a strain than the knee-block.

    I am informed by a usually reliable (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    source young men on Wall Street are new curling afficianados.

    Don't tell me... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    we gotta cover their curling losses too.

    My local paper had an ad in it yesterday, (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    for the first ime that I'm aware, about a curling facility in a nearby town.

    It is fun, in a shuffle-board/lawn-darts/washers sort of way. I did it years ago in upstate NY. It was mostly an excuse to drink beer. The rocks are pretty heavy, as I recall, like big bowling balls...


    What I believe is the only (?) curling club (none / 0) (#8)
    by esmense on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:32:40 PM EST
    on the West Coast isn't very far from my home. My adultson and his friends have gone to a couple of their "open houses" and really like the sport. I hope they don't find out that the Wall Street types have adopted it -- it could be very bad for the sport's image.

    Seattle? (none / 0) (#11)
    by denise k on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:39:03 PM EST
    Is there another rink on the west coast (south of Canada, that is).

    SoCal Curling (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    Yes. The Granite Curling Club on 130th (none / 0) (#45)
    by esmense on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:14:20 PM EST
    Perhaps its not the only one of the West Coast, I just dimly think I heard somewhere that it was. Supposedly, the club includes more national champions than any other club in the US.

    CHN v SUI (none / 0) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    CHN just beat SUI 12-6 in the 8th end.

    Curling is a great game (none / 0) (#4)
    by denise k on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    of skill and strategy.  I have curled all my life and I am thrilled to be able to watch it for days on end(pun intended).  

    no offense (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:26:03 PM EST
    but I thought the discovery channel "how its made" show about how the make to big round things was way more interesting than the actual game.

    Then my advice: don't watch it (none / 0) (#10)
    by denise k on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    I think football is about as interesting as watching paint peel, so I don't turn the tv on on Sunday morning.  

    In order to appreciate curling, it helps to understand it.  You need to know the importance of reading the ice, of knowing how and why the rock "curls", when to sweep and when to let a rock "curl", when to throw hack weight and when to draw around a guard.  If you don't know the game, you won't know strategy that says the team without the hammer tries to block the middle with guards and the team without it tries to keep the house clear. If you knew these things, you might enjoy watching it more.  

    But like me and football, you might not.  Just turn the channel.  


    I might (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    but then I understand football, I even used to play it in high school, and I feel pretty much the same way about that.

    exactly so (none / 0) (#29)
    by denise k on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    maybe I have been to hasty (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    in my judgment of this curling thing:

    Emergency shipment of condoms headed to Olympic athletes

    Rowdy curling crowds; spontaneous street parties; public drunkeness. You don't have to look far for evidence that the crowds at Winter Games in Vancouver know how to have a good time.

    And, as if anymore proof is needed that a wild Olympic atmosphere permeates B.C.'s largest city, now there's an apparent condom shortage.

    USA vs Russia (none / 0) (#38)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    That's when I started paying attention to curling. Those Russians have some great assets on their team, ;p

    There's something very relaxing about that show (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:19:49 PM EST
    Let's rock (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    Part 4... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:54:24 PM EST
    was great man...when I get pissed at bullsh*t the tale from Beirut you passed on is my new perspective-izer.

    And I miss the old-school job hunt...want-ads and pavement...hope it still works when its time for me to find the next gig.

    Ya got me hooked bro.


    TY (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    The first installment, pre-early daze, is getting published by The Reader, probably in May, got a few bucks out of it so far at least.

    No idea where I'm going with it next, tho.  


    The reincarnated Judith Moore. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    Egad, I'm flattered (none / 0) (#91)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 01:20:13 PM EST
    I still forget she's gone.  Happens a lot these days.

    I miss her. Kind of stopped reading (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    the Reader after she died.

    Well done, Dadler (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    How far back do the pre-early daze go?

    That stuff is from the mid 90's... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    ...to the early 2000's.

    11 dimensional chess (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:40:11 PM EST
    President Obama and Mr Axelrod are proving to be grand masters. We are a nation that complains of high taxes and big government yet when asked what programs we should cut it is always NIMBY.  We are a nation where only 54% of the population votes.  A nation where reelection is virtually guaranteed in the house and senate.  Polling suggests that more than 60% want hcr and my guess is that 80% believe healthcare costs too much and would fully support a reduction in that expense.  

    The administration is calling everyone out. The democrats who are saying "lead Mr. President tell us what to do" when they know full well what the majority of american people want them to do.  They are calling out the republicans who are obstructing to neuter the other party with callous disregard to the american people.  They are calling out the american voters.  We want affordable healthcare, jobs, a balanced budget and a strong defense yet wwhile cutting taxes.  When it is time to vote slightly more than half show up.  We is wee.

    As far as I am concerned the administration is holding their end of the bargain.  Up or down and let the voters decide.  If the voters show up in the 50% range the voters have earned the representation they elected.  

    But when all is said and done, parties control policy, not the indivdual elected.  But that seems like check to me...  

    What do you see the administration's bargain on (none / 0) (#21)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:56:16 PM EST
    health care or insurance being? And with whom/what?

    I fear it is to do something around the edges, but to also ensure continued high profitability for the for-profit private health insurers. More lemon socialism.

    And we can't afford to do that. What value do the for-profits bring to health CARE? How can we afford to pay not only their high premium costs AND taxes to pay for subsidies to allow the less well-off to pay their high premium costs??? Why the middleman when we know Medicare works?

    Doesn't compute, and we could save $400B per year with single payer.

    Medicare (Improved!) for All...with a robust private option would be so much better.

    Sen.Gillebrand says it CAN be done through reconcilation, while the Senate/House/WH mishmash would have problems. Imagine! Universal care with a proven program for administering it! Ready to go Now, NOW, NOW!

    For me, if Medicare isnt' too messed up by the time I get there (only 337 days until I'm eligible!!), I'll be sorta OK. I worry about the people who will be without insurance or forced to pay for junk insurance to avoid fines....


    asking the american people to accept (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    a hybrid version of capitalism with socialized medicine is a mountainous leap.  Single payer, socialized medicine would mean several million people working in healthcare would face job elimination and wage reductions.  Every part of the economy would feel an aftershock.  Easing into change has less dramatic impact than the alternative.  Medicare is not the answer, it will kill the budget eventually.  Socialized medicine for a country rightfully in love with capitalism, is a necessary evil and a moral accomplishment.  The truth is no one wants to have that discussion because of the slippery slope, first the morality of healthcare and next the morality of excessive credit rates.  

    It's the type of real discussion politicians should be having.  The only way to pay for it is to have an increase in taxes and to do have that discussion in the worst economy since the GD is deemed stupid and undoable.  

    It's like we are crying about the excesses on wall street and on the other hand exceeding the federal and state governments budgets every year for services we don't want cut.

    It's the type of real discussion politicians should be having with us...


    It's "too big to fail" (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:09:14 PM EST
    all over again, isn't it?

    First, single-payer is not socialized medicine; it's no different than the way Medicare is administered, and I don't see older people having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to enroll in it when they are eligible, so I don't think there would be any mountainous leap for most people to make if offered the opportunity.

    Second, there have been studies done that show single-payer creating jobs, not eliminating them.  Many currently employed in the private companies would transition to the new system - when you potentially add all Americans to a plan, there's going to be a need for people to work within that now much larger system.

    I can't see much point in creating a brand new structure that not everyone will be able to participate in, and maintaining a dysfunctional private system that is a product of this capitalism you seem to think we all love so much.


    Its not too big to fail (none / 0) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:00:44 PM EST
    but it would quite honestly cost at the very least hundreds of thousands of people their jobs.

    not to say this is an unacceptable price (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:02:50 PM EST
    but- its understandablely going to make some people angry- like when Autoworkers couldn't stand mechanization and progress- it was the right thing to do, better for the vast majority of people but also made some people extremely angry.  

    Uh Medicare is not free (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    and only covers 80% of what the Doctor charges plus a high deductible for hospital services.

    In addition to having paid the Medicare tax all our lives us Seniors pay about $110 per month plus Rx insurance of $40 covers only about $2700 worth of drugs and then 5% of the cost above about $4500. (To lazy to get the exact numbers but that's close.)

    You can easily spend $12000 or so out of pocket unless you have Supplemental Medical for about $180/month, but even that doesn't cover the drug costs.

    For example some of the blood pressure drugs, often prescribed in tandem run $300 a month. Heart medicine runs in that range and COPD drug combos are in the $450 a month. Need rehab beyond the 21 days and that gets to $6000-$8000 a month real quick.

    So when Obama poopoos the $500 billion cut Seniors get real concerned real quick.


    Perhaps closing the doughnut (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kent Allard on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 07:52:40 AM EST
    hole in Plan D and allowing the government to bargain with the drug companies to get lower prices on drugs, as the VA can do right now,is one way of attacking the problem, along with emphasizing that cutting the cost of waste and fraud doesn't threaten anyone's wallet or healthcare, is the way to go.

    But, hey, what do I know?


    Well, I'm waiting for those (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    fraud investigating patients that the Repubs want and Obama said he would look into...

    And the VA, if I understand, obtains the drugs and gives them to the patient. There is no insurance company and/or pharmacy involved.

    Part of the problem is regulatory. Takes too long and costs too much to bring a new drug on line. Then the patient is too long so there is no generic.

    Would changing these reduce R&D on new drugs? Perhaps. But if we bankrupt ourselves and destroy the system the effect will be much worse.


    no (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:17:55 PM EST
    because until we discuss how the federal government can live within its means we are adding to the budget.  It needs to be not-for-profit single payer.  I don't think there is an economist on the planet that doesn't think any of the plans are sustainable without tax increases and cuts in other areas.  

    Then first cut the enormous (none / 0) (#79)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:25:42 PM EST
    military budget, and if that's not enough, raise taxes.

    And consider that single-payer could save some $350 billion in the first year - that's not chump change.


    The issue (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 10:51:37 AM EST
    is whose taxes get raised?

    The public is not buying into Obama's claims. The middle class sees this as another freebie for someone else to be paid for by them.

    The only solution that will work is a National Sales Tax.


    the truth is everyones (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 12:44:45 PM EST
    and therein lies the problem.  We want the best roads, best schools, best everything and we want it cheaply.  walmart should manage the supply chain, we would definitely get the best pricing.

    Current Harvard figures; Save $400 B per year (none / 0) (#89)
    by jawbone on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    with a Medicare for All-type plan. And that adds vision and dental! Comprehensive, babeeee!

    kuttner (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    what we need and no, Mr. Kuttner and i did not speak....



    One word: Medicare (none / 0) (#88)
    by jawbone on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 11:39:20 AM EST
    But our Dems had single payer taken off the table by our ostensibly Dem prez, so they couldn't use this existing greatly popular program to build on. Or for marketing their plan.

    HR 676 (Improved Medicare for All) has programs to assist BHIP (Big Health Industry Players) workers adversely affected by moving to single payer Medicare (Improved!) for All. Not for execs, however....

    Doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers would be able to have smaller office staffs since the vastly lessened burdensome paperwork, calling to insurers, submitting and resubmitting claims, arguing about denials of service and claims would not be necessary.  

    Of course, the trained medical personnel who currently work to deny care could work providing care, if more people could afford it. Eh?

    Then there's the moral question: Is it worth 45,000 dying from lack of coverage and care each year to provide jobs for people who work for the corporations which prevent them from having CARE?

    We were aghast at under 3000 people killed by terrorists. We were willing to go to war over their deaths and the perceived danger of more terrorism.

    But, about 45,000? Meh, their deaths are not recorded, come in dribs and drabs, so are not really considered important. Just the American way of life ... and death.

    I can get on Medicare in 334* days, so I will be sorta OK, but millions of people will still not be anywhere near OK. I don't want them to have to deal with the stress and exorbitant expense of the US style inurance parasites; I want everyone in, nobody out. I want the dread of bankruptcy removed at least for health care reasons. I want people to seek rewarding employment without fear of not having employer provided health insurance.

    *Yes, I am counting -- I may have to face going without insurance at some point soon. So, I'm counting very carefully. How long can I go without testing to check on the state of my thyroid cancer, etc....


    The issue in all of this is who pays (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:44:35 PM EST
    Go single payer and use a national sales tax that everyone pays and much of the opposition goes away.

    But rob Medicare to pay for Paul and you lose the seniors.... Waffle about taxes on who will pay and you lose the middle class..

    It aint brain surgery or rocket science.


    In case anyone missed it further down. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:42:24 PM EST
    Ms Desiree Rogers, noted social gadfly, of the White House is vacating her Social Secretary Post in March.


    I wish she had lasted (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    A little longer than Sally Quinn. Just cuz.

    I didnt (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:53:50 PM EST
    watch the healthcare summit yesterday but was watching the discussion of it today on CNN. They certainly were doing Obama no favors running a clip of him saying that people were working two jobs and couldnt get insurance. When he said that I wanted to SCREAM!! He simply DOES NOT get it. The problem is not that someone who works two jobs to put food on the table can't get insurnce (unless they have a preexisting condition) but that they can't AFFORD insurance. CNN did at least have a short news story on after that about the problems people were having AFFORDING insurance.

    It's worse than that. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    It's not just that they can't afford insurance, it's that co-pays and deductibles are part of the deal, and if you can barely pay your premiums, there isn't anything left to go toward care.

    Obama still thinks this is about insurance; it is in the sense that for too many people, it is a barrier to care, but Obama seems to still believe that having insurance means you have care.

    We know that it doesn't, and the only reason Obama doesn't know it is that he doesn't want to - it gets in the way of protecting the insurance companies' territory.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:07:40 PM EST
    I think that probably helped him- people know individuals who can't afford or qualify for insurance, he might he phrased it in a way you disagree with (though lets be honest he could quote you word for word and you'd say his "tone was off-putting" or some other ODS drivel) but he made a valid point- millions of people can't afford or qualify for insurance despite working hard.

    Good grief. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    Yes, my point was AFFORD but that's not what he said. You keep making the same point.

    Obama is a great moderator and mediator for such events but not much of a leader but it's easier to scream ODS for apologists like you than face the facts. He's not a very good communicator if even you are having to write the above post explaining what Obama probably meant. I think most people in the country understand the word afford despite what people like you might think.


    No, I pretty much hold the ODS title (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    for a few people on here, a lot of people have a genuine greivance but a handful- yourself included take every single action as a mistake and afront to Democratic Values, even actions which are good, or in your case if they had been done by Bill Clinton would be cause for celebration.

    How about taking this one step further? (none / 0) (#72)
    by itscookin on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:53:34 PM EST
    If the proposals on the table had been made by the Republicans, would you still support them?

    yes (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#75)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:17:40 PM EST
    Policy is policy and Republicans sometimes do the right thing- I like McCain-Feingold, I think the first Gulf War was a laudable thing, heck the Wyden-Bennett bill while quite frankly not as good as the Senate Bill or the President's proposal (but better than the House bill due to the omission Stupak).

    Well (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 04:05:23 PM EST
    if you think this then you haven't been reading my posts. I don't think that Obama has ANY values so how can he sell out something that he doesnt believe in?

    You actually are projecting your value system onto me which is that you are constanlty complaining Bill Clinton while apologizing for Obama. The pretzels you turn yourself into make excuses for Obama are simply amazing to watch.


    Although a man opining on NPR (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:05:15 PM EST
    yesterday afternoon about the summit sd. most people get their insurance through their employer or rely on someone else who gets it that way; and that such people don't really know how much their health care insurance costs (payroll deduction) or the true cost of their health care.  

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    there's a lot of truth in that. However, most business now only pay 80% of the cost of the employee and all the family costs are deducted 100% from the pay check. For example, a friend of mine has a policy from her husband company that's $1200.00 a month. The company pays $400.00 of it which is their portion for her huband and they must pay $800.00 a month for it. Granted $800.00 is a great deal for what they get BUT still they really can't afford to pay $200.00 a week when his hours are getting cut. I guess there are a few companies that still provide good family benefits but it seems that no one I know has them.

    it was another bad professor moment. (none / 0) (#41)
    by observed on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:45:37 PM EST
    Obama not saying clearly something he thinks should be obvious ( at least I hope he thinks it's obvious).

    Battle of the Jims (none / 0) (#46)
    by shoephone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    McDermott takes on Bunning:

    "Today, one Republican Senator, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, is attempting to single-handedly cut off jobless aid to American workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own. With unemployment at nearly 10 percent and millions of families depending on this support, Senator Bunning's hold on this legislation is inexplicable. Sen. Bunning may have earned himself a spot in the Baseball Hall of Fame, but his recent actions show he may be better suited for the Hall of Shame in Congress."  

    "Make no mistake--Congress will extend this program and we will provide the emergency funds necessary to do so.  In the meantime, States will be forced to send out notices of benefit termination and go through procedures to temporarily terminate existing programs, only to restart them again when Mr. Bunning has stepped down from his soap box.  This bureaucratic headache will be time consuming, inefficient and expensive to cash-strapped States, making Mr. Bunning's opposition particularly ironic.  He opposes these benefits because they have yet to be offset, yet he is driving the cost up in the meantime.

    "But most importantly, Mr. Bunning is holding hostage the millions of laid-off Americans who deserve to know if they will be able to make their next electricity or mortgage payment."

    What are the odds (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    that the Dem and Repub leaderships both knew well in advance that the measure would be "Bunninged" and neither side did what was necessary to resolve the conflict beforehand? That, even, maybe, both sides actually looked forward to the opportunity for political grandstanding?

    Hey, if you know something the rest of us don't (none / 0) (#49)
    by shoephone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:36:47 PM EST
    by all means, fill us in.

    this politico thing (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:40:53 PM EST
    was pretty funny:

    Sen. Jim Bunning holds floor: 'Tough s--t'

    it doesnt really sound to me like it was known in advance.  also funny that they wont spell it out since they are in the business of dishing out steaming piles of it day after day.

    I think an organized effort to flood his office with stool softener would be in order.


    Good leaders (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:48:59 PM EST
    like good lawyers, always know the answers to the questions in advance.

    I dont know (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    I think we are at the point where anyone who tried risks something like those serial killer profilers who get into the minds of those guys and then go completely insane because of it.

    Obama seemed not to give the (none / 0) (#84)
    by Kent Allard on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 07:56:23 AM EST
    answer McCain was looking for when McCain asked him a question at the health summit, so it's obvious that McCain wouldn't be a great leader, by the above criterion.

    Speculation, as I indicated. (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:57:28 PM EST
    I've always wondered if Bunning (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    got beaned in the head with a baseball, because he is truly not the brightest bulb in the place; and he's such an a$$.

    McDermott, on the other hand, is a gem (as you know); I wish we could clone him.


    He is a gem, and wears those rose-colored glasses (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 09:01:51 PM EST
    After all, he's a loyal Cubs fan!

    nice big word Psychogeezer (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:09:14 PM EST
    Since I never (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:17:51 PM EST
    watch cable news anymore I was amazed at how they are all playing up this it's the end fo teh world if reconcillation happens on teh cable news today and it wasnt even Fox. The GOP apparently still controls the media microphone.

    which only reinforces (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:24:10 PM EST
    what I said earlier in the day that this whole kabuki bipartisan thing was a rope a dope.  and a necessary one.  can you imagine how much worse it would be if Obama had said what he knew from the beginning that this would be passed with reconciliation instead of his theatrical groveling at the feel of Olympia Snowe?



    Better (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:30:09 PM EST
    yet it would be if someone was immune from the media. It's hard fall when you lose your media darling status I guess. Scott Brown threw a dagger that landed on Obama in the eyes of the media and so that's that.

    well I hate them (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:32:48 PM EST
    you hate them.  but dont underestimate how valuable a partner they can be.

    I think Os media status is as responsible for our being this close to the goal line as anything else.


    Per Digby, Sen. Bunning had (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:24:22 PM EST
    Sen. Corker waiting in the on-deck circle in case the former needed "to leave the room."  

    Boy, if I didn't know better, (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    I'd swear you're the kissing cousin of Dark Avenger, aka Scary Liberal...

    I've been lurking for a long time (none / 0) (#94)
    by Kent Allard on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    and only registered recently, do you have a problem with that or the articles I linked to in my previous comment?

    Yes, that is Dark Avenger (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 07:25:42 PM EST
    posting as Kent Allard, and he's now banned.

    Please, D.A., you've been banned after giving you many chances. You need to find another site to comment on. I don't want to keep policing threads.