Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Hateris Tebowis:

Week: 6 Tebow performance: Filling in for the ineffective Kyle Orton in the second half, Tebow nearly rallies Denver to a victory over the Chargers.

Haterus Tebowis comments: "That was adorable. But if John Fox listens to these stupid Denver fans and starts Tebow in a game next week, he needs to have his head examined."

Haterus Tebowis population: 150 million [MORE . . .]

Week 13 Tebow performance: Despite a poor performance by a Denver defense playing without Von Miller, the Broncos win 35-32 on a last-second field goal. Tebow's passing leads Denver's offense in the second half, and he finishes the game 10-for-15 for 202 yards and two touchdowns.

Haterus Tebowis comments: "Shut up."

Haterus Tebowis population: 75 million

[. . .]AFC Championship Game Tebow performance: Tebow leads a second-half comeback as the Broncos advance to the Super Bowl.

Haterus Tebowis comments: "Good. This is what I wanted to happen all along. I want everyone in the country to see Tebow get humiliated by Aaron Rodgers. It's going to be awesome. I've never been so excited for a Super Bowl."

Haterus Tebowis population: 100

Heh. Open Thread.

< Study Finds Racial Disparity in Presidential Pardons | Things Done And Not Done >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Excellent read in Salon yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    on studies by Richard Hofstader. It's called The infantile style in American politics."

    I enjoyed it, and it reveals a lot about today's republicans.

    Not to mention, ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Erehwon on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    yesterday's republicans! :-(

    How to stump an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann appeared stunned Sunday after an 8-year-old South Carolina boy told her that his gay mother didn't "need any fixing."

    The candidate was signing her memoir Core of Conviction for a scant few supporters at a Myrtle Beach Books-A-Million when 8-year-old Elijah stepped forward with a message.

    "You said it, but I think my ears were too far away," Bachmann told the boy as she leaned over the table, pulling him close.

    "Ms. Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need any fixing," Elijah whispered into her ear.

    The dumbfounded GOP hopeful slowly stood up with her wide eyes glaring at the mother.

    "Bye, bye," she waived.


    Bukowski meets the NFL (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:06:56 PM EST
    "Do you hate Tebow?"

    "No, but I seem to feel better when he's not around."

    Well played sir.... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:27:03 PM EST
    speaking of Chinaski and the lord...

    "For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us."

    Hey, Henry... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    "Last time I saw you, you had nothing.  Now you got a woman and a radio."

    "I always had the radio, Jim."

    You ever read John Fante, Dog?  Big influence on Bukowski.  Check out ASK THE DUST, great book with an even greater introduction by Chuck B.  They made a movie out of it finally, a few years back, with Colin Farrell, but I couldn't bring my self to see it, the book is too sparse and perfect.


    Need to get on that... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    Bukowski does rave about him, and how I adore Bukowski.

    "Sometimes you just have to pee in the sink."

    The protagonist in ASK THE DUST... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    ...falls in love with a Mexican gal in 1930s Los Angeles. The relationship is passionate, fleeting, maddening and, ultimately, haunting.  You'll love it.

    And, funny story, before the final playoff game of my H.S. basketball career, in the vistor's locker room, I was so anxious and wired for the game that I took a leak in the unusually low sink, mistaking it in my excitement for a urinal.  


    I caught my old man... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    urinating in the kitchen sink too many times to count as a kid...must be an alcoholic thang cuz I still don't get it...easier aim or what?  

    That's how I feel :) (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 09:27:41 AM EST
    Well I'll be dipped in sh*t... (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:18:23 PM EST
    just got my first ever Christmas bonus at this outfit...5 hundo minus 94 for Uncle Scam.

    Huge...I was sweating paying my Christmas nut, now I'm straight with enough left over to see Cheap Trick on Thursday. Sa-weet.

    Merry Christmas ya old Building & Loan!!!

    You might (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    want to invest in the market for your retirement with that, kdog. ;-)

    Yuk yuk yuk... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    I might have 20 or so left over for investing...at OTB:)

    Yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Give the leftovers to Wall Street...

    Nice! (none / 0) (#17)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:23:16 PM EST

    Cheap Trick is touring?


    Indeed... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:34:24 PM EST
    saw a thunderstorm shortened free Cheap Trick show over the summer in Coney with the special lady...now I get the full show in a beautiful newly renovated theater right around the way, The Paramount.

    Only three dates on their website...Maryland and St. Pete FLA...but I'm sure they'll be back on the road in 2012.


    What a great surprise!!! (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 08:15:01 PM EST
    Congrats! I know you will enjoy the coin!

    Courtesy of Irene! (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 08:16:47 PM EST
    It's an ill wind (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 08:18:35 PM EST
    that blows no good.

    Or something like that.


    Irene played a role... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    in their, quoting the boss, "very good year".

    But I think the main factor is they made too much money, it's either give it to the proles or the taxman...and maybe a little OWS raising awareness of the plight of the working person.


    Uncoordinated warmongering (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    Asked whether the United States, in cooperation with Israel, was now engaged in a covert war against Iran's nuclear program that may include the Stuxnet virus, the blowing-up of facilities and the assassination or kidnapping of scientists, one recently retired U.S. official privy to up-to-date intelligence would not deny it.

    "It's safe to say the Israelis are very active," the official said, adding about U.S. efforts: "Everything that [GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney said we should be doing-tough sanctions, covert action and pressuring the international community - are all of the things we are actually doing." Though the activities are classified, a senior Obama administration official also would not deny that such a program was under way. He indicated that the U.S. was not involved in every action, referring to recent alleged explosions at Isfahan and elsewhere. But, he added: "I wouldn't assume that everything we do is coordinated."

    War With Iran May Already Have Begun
    Michael Hirsh, The Atlantic, 06 December 11

    Nancy just sent me an email (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:45:51 PM EST
    asking for help to support the payroll tax cut extension. She said being on the side of letting it eclipse was standing with the 1%.

    Well, gee. Why is that? Why not lift the cap on SS and FICA? Wouldn't that show opposition to the 1%? the payroll tax holiday was a bad idea at the time, and an extension of it continues to be a bad idea.

    Tell Nancy... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    her insider trading is straight-up 1%er...who she think she foolin' man.

    She's fooled enough (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    Demos to keep her in power.

    Not that she is alone in that position.


    So I finally saw (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by CST on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:08:53 PM EST
    The HBO series/movie John Adams this weekend.  Or at least the first 2/3 of it.

    He is such a m@sshole it's hilarious.  He reminds me of people that still live here, unpopular curmudgeouns that push push push but have limited tact.

    We needed it back then though, and we still need it today.  Just not necessarily as president.

    The part where he goes to europe and is a complete disaster is something I definitely did not remember from history class, but is hilarious.

    Anyway, I feel like the BTD "better democrats" post was talking about how we need more ben franklins, not more john adams's.  For anyone who has seen that movie.

    Very astute, and funny, remarks,CST. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 08:01:16 PM EST
    John Adams was such a pain in the @ss. And a bit of a prig. When one factors in his behavior in, and attitude about, France, it is something of a miracle that France was so helpful to the Americans. Thank god for Ben Franklin.

    Adams did contribute mightily to the cause of American independence and the building of the new country. That said, his pompous self-righteousness kind of reminded me of Joe Lieberman.


    Things I like about John Adams: (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:05:40 AM EST
    1. Sided with the right team during the Rev War

    2. Served only one term as prez

    3. Died the same day as Tom Jefferson, 50 years to the day of the Declaration's official signing

    4. Married a smart attractive and highly literate and opinionated woman

    5. He reincarnated in our time as the Union Oil 76 exec and author of the nifty book Return of the Revolutionaries (while Mrs Adams would reincarnate as the new age author Marianne Williamson).

    Benjamin Franklin slept his way to the top (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    in France, and John Adams as a lawyer with principles represented British soldiers of the Boston massacre.  I shudder to think what we would have lost in our "becoming" if either one of them had done any of that any differently.

    Abigail Adams (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    was awesome.

    The pox innoculation?  At a time when doctors were still bleeding people?  Nuts!

    John wasn't so bad, he just wasn't very good either.  I think there are important niche roles for people to play though and he had his.  It just wasn't as a diplomat.

    Frankly, I think he might have made a better supreme court justice.


    Ah, but he was smart enough to (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 07:05:08 PM EST
    love Abigail!

    I loved that whole series (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 09:34:20 AM EST
    So did Josh.  And when you watch Marie Antoinette by Sophia Coppola it all seems so grand, and clean.....like showers and soap everyday and washing machines :) But it wasn't anything like that at all. It was stinky stinky people with lots of powder and rouge over older powder and rouge and silk beauty spots and wilted silks.  I loved what an old whore Ben Franklin was :)

    is it weird (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CST on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:20:30 AM EST
    that I totally have a crush on Thomas Jefferson?

    And not just because the actor is very good looking.  He's the type that would break my heart.  Woo me with your idealist talk of revolution, shamelessly flirt with me with your effortless charm, and then leave me for shenanigans in France ;)

    I think I'd fall for that every time.


    Not weird at all... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    serious man-crush on Jefferson here, and Benjamin Franklin...the original gangster of hedonism.

    Yes, I would have had Thomas Jefferson's babies (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    Yep - I have fallen for more than my share (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    of modern-day wannabes.

    Hey, ruffian, did you see the news? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    Ron Santo finally made it into the Hall of Fame. Too bad it didn't happen while he was still alive.

    This link should have been preceded by: (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    read the whole thing.  Funny.  

    ACA (none / 0) (#4)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    is working:

    "WASHINGTON - More than 2.65 million Medicare recipients have saved more than $1.5 billion on their prescriptions this year, a $569-per-person average, while premiums have remained stable, the government plans to announce today. . . . That's because of the provision of the health care law that put a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the "doughnut hole," the gap between traditional and catastrophic coverage in the drug benefit, also known as Part D.
    And, as of the end of November, more than 24 million people, or about half of those with traditional Medicare, have gone in for a free annual physical or other screening exam since the rules changed this year because of the health care law."


    Then again, maybe we should just scrap it.  It's completely useless because there is no public option and no one is being helped.

    Or something.

    Health care fixed (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:00:29 PM EST
    $1.5billion saved by seniors on prescriptions.

    Got it.

    Effin hilarious.


    Come on, BTD... sheesh (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:09:28 PM EST
    I don't know the exact numbers, but it should help reduce the cost of their mandates and co-pays and denials at least a tiny bit, shouldn't it?

    There are about 3.6 million seniors in America, and this 1.5 Billion, near as I can figure, works out to $416 each.

    That's 34 bucks a month!

    Any senior who can't cover their medical bills will that probably drinks too much. By now.


    Oooops... typo (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    there are about 39 million seniors in America, not 3.6 million.

    I miscalculated. I'd better support Obama. The guy blows me away. ;-)

    Someone else better work out how much per month that 1.5 billion is for each of them....


    $500+ (none / 0) (#23)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    in savings a year that you completely ignored above aside of course.

    Great stat that puts everything in perspective for me:

    "Among those who don't like Obamacare, nearly half admit that their dislike has nothing much to do with the law itself. They're just mad at Obama and/or Washington DC."




    your grade: Incomplete (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    you left out this part:

    It turns out that many of the unfavorable/don't know opinions aren't from people who dislike healthcare reform, they're from people who don't think Obamacare went far enough.

    in addition, Drum's pie chart includes a segment indicating that 40 percent of the respondents (but which respondents? all respondents? all Democratic respondents? all Democratic respondents who are critical of the ACA?) say their dislike of the ACA is "more about [their] general feelings about the directon of the country and  what's going on in Washington right now" -  Drum interprets this "finding" as follows:

    The decline [in favorability toward the ACA] has been almost entirely due to waning favorability among Democrats. Among those who don't like Obamacare, nearly half [that is, 40 percent, which in raw numbers would be more accurately characterized as "nearly a third"] admit [sic] that their dislike has nothing much to do with the law itself. They're just mad at Obama and/or Washington DC.

    "just mad at Obama" - got it

    "just mad at Obama," for no reason at all

    who knew that "nearly half" of this ill-defined group of Democrats had gone P^MA?


    I didn't leave that out (none / 0) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    it changes nothing about what I wrote.  

    Most people who don't like Obamacare are basing their feelings on things other than what the law actually says or does.

    Full stop.


    jesus c (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    of course you left that out, because it interferes with your Obama-worshiping story line

    do you really think that people can't see that you left that out?


    Most people who don't like Obamacare . . .

    since when is 40 percent "most people"?

    are basing their feelings . . .

    when did the observation that the ACA doesn't go far enough become "feelings"?

    on things other than what the law actually says or does.

    & just who imagines that an unfavorable view of the ACA, a view based on actual, rational analysis of what the ACA says & does, is based on "things other than what the law actually says or does"?

    oh wait - i know who

    Obama fanboys like Kevin Drum & you

    my only question is why you & Drum persist in calling the ACA by its Republican epithet, "Obamacare"

    i guess it just shows that "most people" who "like" the ACA have more in common with Republicans than they do with "most people" who "don't like" the ACA


    Or I left it out (none / 0) (#44)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    because it wasn't the point.

    I call it Obamacare (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:36:32 PM EST
    because Obama should be proud of it.  In the years to come, it will represent a concept that has saved thousands of lives.

    "I have no problem with folks saying `Obama Cares.' I do care. If the other side wants to be the folks who don't care, that's fine with me."

    - Obama


    heh (none / 0) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 05:07:27 PM EST
    Obama: "Message: I care."

    sometimes the comments just write themselves . . .


    A Trip Down Memory Lane (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 05:15:51 PM EST
    With Senator Obama...

    "The only bills that I've voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate, were introduced by Republicans or by George Bush."

        -- Senator Barack Obama @ 2min 8sec

    Raise your hand (none / 0) (#8)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    if you said ACA would fix healthcare.

    [Me, Obama and the dems, and everyone else who pushed for ACA have their hands down.]

    ACA is the most significant step forward in addressing various healthcare issues of our lifetimes.  The effects took a while but are starting to kick in.  This in the LA Times today:

    "I found out three weeks ago I have cancer. I'm 49 years old, have been married for almost 20 years and have two kids. [...] We're good people, and we work hard. But we haven't been able to afford health insurance for more than two years. And now I have third-stage breast cancer and am facing months of expensive treatment. [...] Fortunately for me, I've been saved by the federal government's Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, something I had never heard of before needing it. [...] It's not perfect, of course, and it still leaves many people in need out in the cold. But it's a start, and for me it's been a lifesaver -- perhaps literally.

    Which brings me to my apology. I was pretty mad at Obama before I learned about this new insurance plan. I had changed my registration from Democrat to Independent, and I had blacked out the top of the "h" on my Obama bumper sticker, so that it read, "Got nope" instead of "got hope." I felt like he had let down the struggling middle class. My son and I had campaigned for him, but since he took office, we felt he had let us down.

    So this is my public apology. I'm sorry I didn't do enough of my own research to find out what promises the president has made good on."


    I suspect there will be a lot of that as the benefits of ACA kick in.


    Also too (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    "ACA is the most significant step forward in addressing various healthcare issues of our lifetimes. "

    Nonsense. I was born in 1962.

    Beyond that, S-CHiP's record has been proven, and that was in 1997.

    If, IF, Medicaid expansion holds up, then ACA will clearly surpass S-CHiP. If it doesn't, then I don't see it.

    The regulatory reforms, the exchanges, etc., will fail imo.

    And that is the centerpiece of ACA.


    OK (none / 0) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    I was born in 1973.  Revise my statement to say "my lifetime" and I disagree with S-CHIP being anywhere near as important.  

    When the things you say will fail, fail, I agree that you may have a point.  They haven't failed yet so you can't judge this based on their anticipated failure.  

    Based on what it is intended to do, it is definitely the most material change during that period.  If it fails on all fronts, then you have a point.   I don't think the exchanges will fail.


    You should take your own advice. (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    When the things you say will succeed, succeed, we will agree that you may have a point.  They haven't succeeded yet, so you can't judge them based on their anticipated success.

    I'd be fine with a truce that says (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:49:56 PM EST
    Let's wait until after 2014 to make a judgement on ACA.

    I have some sense that you will not find that compromise acceptable.


    Does that mean (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    you would stop promoting it as one of his accomplishments?  Because I would be fine with that compromise.

    I'd be fine with that (none / 0) (#66)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 05:45:59 PM EST
    A few problems:

    1. We need to win an election and the bad guys are distorting Obamacare worse than those on the left are distorting it.

    2. The provisions in ACA now in effect are actively saving lives and Obama and the dems need to talk about that accomplishment (and as a result may need to reference it when people claim that Obama has accomplished nothing)

    There is a lot of good Obamacare stuff in effect right now so we know what the impact of that stuff is:

    largely positive.


    So ... no? (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 05:48:52 PM EST
    Is that what you're saying?  That you don't want really want to abide by the compromise you proposed?  

    The legislation was, far and away, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    about insurance, not care.  It wasn't built around a theme and philosophy of "everyone is entitled to affordable, accessible care," it was built around a theme and philosphy that "we'll make it easier to get insurance, but we wash our hands of whether you can (1) afford the premiums, co-pays and deductibles, and (2) find providers that will accept your insurance."

    The ACA did nothing to remove insurance as the barrier to actual care.

    "Public option" was to the reform debate what "Change you can believe in" was to the Obama campaign: bumper stickers so devoid of meaning people could make them mean whatever they wanted.

    I have no doubt there are people who have been helped, but I can tell you that some states - and MD is one of them - have had insurance plans for quite some time that covered those with pre-existing conditions or who had been denied insurance in the private market.  That people who lived in states where such a thing did not exist can now access coverage is a good thing - one's ability to access care should not depend on where one lives within the same country.

    It remains to be seen how much of the Act will perform as advertised, since so much of it is still on hold; I will maintain until I have no breath to do so that one doesn't call something a crisis and then delay implementation for some four years.  It's like calling 911 and being told someone will be walking to your location, and the supplies needed to treat you will be along later.

    We will never know how this would have turned out, how much more progress might have been made, if we had a president who believed in a Medicare for All-type program, and spent his valuable time and political capital on something other than catering to insurance and Big Pharma.

    And spare me the lecture about how he couldn't even try because "everyone" knew it would be impossible to do.


    OK Anne (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    You would argue that Obamacare is similar or identical to Romneycare in Maryland? Correct.

    If so, the opinion of the citizens of Maryland on Romneycare could give us some idea how Obamacare will be thought of in years to come.

    "Support for the Massachusetts universal health care law has increased since 2009, according to a poll of the state's residents -- even as the law has become the subject of blistering attacks in national and presidential politics, and health care costs soar. . . The poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe found that 63 percent of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, up 10 percentage points in the past two years. Just 21 percent said they were against the law."

    Now I don't necessarily think Romneycare = Obamacare, but as someone who does, how do you respond to the fact that as the plan was implemented, it became increasingly popular and continues to be popular?

    Do the residents of MD not understand what their own plan does?


    Where on earth are you getting the idea (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:49:17 PM EST
    that I am someone who has ever equated "Romneycare" with "Obamacare," or that my comment, above, was an argument that the two are identical or close to identical, ABG?

    Because you were in such a hurry to leap in with a "gotcha" that you failed to read that I live in Maryland, not Massachusetts?.

    Maryland does not have Romneycare.  What Maryland has - as I clearly stated - is a plan - the Maryland Health Insurance Plan - that allows people with pre-existing conditions or who have been denied coverage in the private market to have health insurance.  Provided they can pay the premiums, of course.  That plan has been in existence for at least 8 years - well before the ACA.  It is a plan that is administered through CareFirst BCBS.

    In case you wanted to know, in Maryland, we are not required to have insurance.

    And Maryland is not the only state to create a high-risk/pre-existing conditions kind of plan in order to meet the needs of that portion of the population that is not poor enough for Medicaid, isn't healthy enough to be considered for private insurance and who cannot get group coverage through an employer.

    Read more carefully next time, will you please?


    Moving to Maryland (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    The health insurance available when I moved to MD from Colorado was a wonderful surprise.  About 2/3 the cost of what I was paying before, I expected it to pretty much be junk and I was so wrong.  I've even gotten in the habit of an annual physical examination.

    This year it has jumped significantly.  Not the premiums so much -- but the copays.  Oy.  

    On a related note, I could not (sometimes still cannot) believe the health care options available here.  I was born in Fort Collins which has one hospital to serve about 143K people.  More to the point, about a 40 square mile area (or larger).

    By way of comparison I can think of about 6 hospitals (one of the "hospitals" being the Johns Hopkins medical campus) within 4 miles of where I live.  There is also a facility that appears to be intended for medical care for the homeless.  Obviously, I haven't been in there, but it looks fairly large and the outside doesn't look crummy.  

    And I didn't even know about Maryland Health Insurance Plan.  However a friend of mine who acquired a serious skin infection when he was unemployed (and ineligible for UI. Long story) was able to get treatment.  There was a long wait, but he didn't get dinged with huge costs and wasn't required to pay up front.

    Not used to that.  I wonder if it is because of Johns Hopkins* that health care options are so readily available.  All this was here pre ACA.
    * However, if you need emergency room services I do not recommend JH.  Plenty of other options though.


    You know (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:40:50 PM EST
    that Maryland isn't part of Massachusetts, right?

    Details, details (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:42:08 PM EST
    Who has time for details when everything is great! Eh? ;-)

    Maryland? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:53:18 PM EST
    Don't you mean Massachusetts?

    Reasonable people can agree (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    that those are two states that were part of the 13 original colonies.  And they also begin with "M".  Can we also agree that they can be abbreviated as MDA?

    That's a fair compromise, I think.  No will will receive mail as states are typically abbreviated wth two letters, but it gives both states a little something.  LOL

    Okay, I've been having fun all by myself in my little corner riffing on some of ABG's more outrageous attempts to normalize the abnormal.  I don't have time to type them all up, but it was uncommonly good therapy.

    Ordinarily I'd call this an innocent mistake and leave it at that, but he was really rather nasty to Anne when making it.


    I used the wrong name (none / 0) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:36:18 PM EST
    and caused confusion.

    Oh honey (4.33 / 3) (#61)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    We weren't confused.

    Raise your hand (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:17:27 PM EST
    It was YOU who brought up the public option.

    I brought it up (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:33:08 PM EST
    sarcastically.  The idea that ACA is a huge failure because it doesn't solve every problem (despite helping materially on a LOT of problems) was the point.

    Overall Obamacare is a huge positive.  As you hint, it is not a fix for everything, but it helps to begin to fix a number of things.


    ps (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    your comment yesterday in response to me about liberals was very confusing.

    Yes I know that liberals will probably vote for democrats anyway and the people we need are in "the middle".  My point was that rather than cave your values to the middle, the goal should be to meet the "middle" where they are, but to champion progressive values in such a way that that the case you are making is not that people need to change their values, but that their values are already aligned with progressive values and to highlight those arguments.

    I realize we need people in the middle to win, but rather than selling out to get them, I think we can convince them that they are really already on our side.  And that's the difference.

    Totally off topic to this current thread.  As to the discussion at hand, I have always supported the ACA bill.  But I also recognize that the fight for quality health care in this country is far from over, so I am a bit wary of any "mission accomplished" posts, since it's not accomplished.  That being said, I understand the desire to highlight the accomplishments so they don't get lost.  $529 per person, per year, is nothing to scoff at.


    CST (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    That's my take. It's evidence that the dems built some good stuff into the bill. I don't know of anyone who believes ACA is the solution to our care issues or even argues that.  

    Not being drawn in to your inaccurate caricature (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    today (you forget that we actually read those comments).  That's because this absolutely delighted me and I'm in much too good a mood.

    It also inspired me to get her book which got decent reviews (although there are few).  It looks like a fun read.  I'll probably end up reading tonight instead of working on my Christmas art projects...


    Hate to be blunt, ABG, but hogwas (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    That's because of the provision of the health care law that put a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the "doughnut hole," the gap between traditional and catastrophic coverage in the drug benefit, also known as Part D.

    Of course my BP meds went up about 9% and Allegra, which was a generic that cost me $10 for 90 days was made an over the counter drug for around $20-$25 a month.

    And we're supposed to forget about the $500 billion removed from Medicare which will, sooner or later, bring on Death Panels.


    Death Panels (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:47:17 PM EST
    I can't really take you seriously parroting Palin themes dontchaknow.

    Death panels are a myth.


    Actually Palin has nothing to do with this (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    except she may have brought the subject to our attention.

    Medical treatment has always recognized triage. Treat the ones you can save, first.

    Triage is also determined by the amount and kind of treatment available.

    By taking $500 billion from Medicare, Obamacare will reduce both the numbers and types of doctors as well as reducing the hospitals and facilities.

    This is a self made shortage and, like most shortages, will lead to rationing.

    When something is rationed someone must be the ones who determine who gets the rationed material.  

    Since you are speaking of medical care, not sugar, which was rationed in WWII, triage comes back into play. If you are 80 and have a problem you are less likely to survive than if you are 65 and have a problem. Since a shortage exists the 85 year old is sent home with pain killers to die. The 65 year old is treated.

    Who makes the decision? A panel does. A Death Panel.

    BTW - Something very similar now exists. Treatments must be approved and patients cannot be kept in the hospital when they pass certain "tests" even if the doctor thinks they should.

    It also happens in Rx Part D. If your doctor changes your medication, say a BP med, you may well discover that the pharmacy calls to tell you your insurance company, following Medicare rules, wants the doctor to tell them why he has changed the med. Hopefully they will approve the Doc's decision.

    So it is not like a Death Panel would require a lot of changes.


    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 06:33:58 PM EST
    despite your use of the loaded word "death panels" you are correct here for the most part. But it's not just Medicare. This is really more the current American medical system. Having had surgery a month ago and had to navigate this nightmare of a system or really a non-system. The surgeon wants his money up front before he does surgery. Who cares whether you have the money or not? The hospital showed up in my room before I checked out wanting a check when they told me not to bring any of that kind of stuff to the hospital in the first place! It's not like the whole experience isn't stressful enough in the first place, they have to stress you out about money too.

    I think we need to face facts and (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 07:03:06 PM EST
    using Death Panels is a way to get people, especially young people, to understand just how screwed up the system is.

    And Obamacare only makes it worse.

    My solution? As noted before, a single payer system for everyone modeled on Medicare. Paid for by a national point of retail sales tax. i.e. Not a VAT.


    Death panels (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 07:08:37 AM EST
    only gets a response from the elderly. That kind of thing doesn't even register with younger people because being 70 or 80 years old is something that they can't even fathom.

    I remember my husband's grandmother getting cancer treatment in her 80's and thinking why when I was in my 20's. The chemo was so awful and it didn't work. I've always wondered if she would have had a better quality of life until the end if she didn't have chemo.


    If the young doesn't get it (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 09:57:10 AM EST
    then we need to educate them.

    Denial is deadly.


    BTW - Your info is inaccurate (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    From "Medicare and you" issued by Medicare.

    "Once you enter the coverage gap, you get a 50% discount on Brand name drugs and you pay 86% of the plan's cost for covered generic until you reach the end of the coverage gap."

    And Medicare has always paid for a doctor's visit and the blood work for indicator screening. Less, of course, the 20% co-pay.


    Agreed. ACA is having an (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 02:19:29 PM EST
    impact.  Of course, there are many uncertainties regarding the present and future interactions between heath care and ACA.  In addition to the Part D, the Medicare Trustees Report for 2011 indicates that the Hospital Trust Fund (Part A, which pays for hospital, hospice and home health care) was substantially improved by the lower expenditures and additional tax revenues instituted by the ACA. However, the slow down in the economy has now resulted in lower tax revenues and higher projections, with the fund exhausted by 2024). Part B that pays for physician and outpatient care is funded by a combination of beneficiary premiums and general revenues was also lower than expected.  Part C, the privatized Advantage combines Part A and B (and optionally D) is the most costly.

    The Trustees, while offering many qualifications over the long term owing to the uncertainties of health care costs and political sustainability, make it clear that there is a sizeable improvement in the financial outlook for Medicare compared to the law in effect prior to ACA.

    Moreover, the ACA offers great potential to reign in the costs of health care by reducing costs, increasing revenues, combating fraud, and, importantly, a program of research and development for alternate payment systems and improved health care delivery systems.

    It is all the more perplexing, therefore, that President Obama would, at this time and with these seemingly positive steps underway, put Medicare "on the table", adopting the false premise that something must be done about Medicare now, such as cuts in benefits or changing the age of eligibility to 67.  The latter, in my view, not only is a "dry savings" but is an initial dismantling of Medicare.  It would seem that the president should extol and explain  this situation rather than undermining his achievement by adopting the Republican premises which are ideologic and hostile.  There is time to observe the outcomes of the steps taken, and certainly, no need to jettison bedrock Democratic values during this wacko political period. A recovered economy and increased tax revenues will address many of the projections--just hard progressivism in action.


    KeysDan (none / 0) (#46)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:17:42 PM EST
    I think he is putting it on the table to win the larger war.  He is taking the strongest GOP sword and trying to blunt it.

    The bottom line is that enough entitlement cutting sentiment exists to make it impossible to ignore.  The smart move would be to channel it in the least damaging way possible.  Political and legislative jujitsu so to speak.

    The idea that Obama can prevent entitlement reform by simply saying no and expect to get his agenda across is a pipe dream.

    The question is where you concede and how.


    Someone who understood the damage (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:43:24 PM EST
    and pain that would result from cutting the social safety net, and was truly committed to a greater-good ideal, would not allow himself, or the national conversation, to be overtaken by the loud voices of politicians, lobbyists, and the media - none of whom would be in any way negatively affected by such cutting.

    Far from ignoring the din, a leader committed to preserving and protecting these lifelines would face it head-on, counter it with facts, and embark on an educational campaign designed to shut these people the frack up.  In other words, LEAD. for crying out loud.

    It isn't "simply" a matter of saying no, it's a matter of refusing to be led in the wrong direction just because the politicians and pundits are screaming in his ear to say yes, and leading in the right direction.

    But, golly, that's just so much harder than taking the path of least resistance and hoping you can find some way to make it seem not so bad - maybe postpone it for a few years, so when the inevitable sh!t hits the fan, it won't matter - to him.

    Who even knows at this point whether Obama even gives a damn about the people who depend on the safety net?

    By your reasoning, if "enough sentiment" existed for Obama jumping off a building, you'd have him negotiating for doing it from the second floor, instead of providing the obvious reasons why, sentinent or no, that made no sense.  And then you'd tell us what a huge victory that was.



    I first read this: (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    "... obvious reasons why, sentinent or no, that made no sense.  "

    as " obvious reasons why, sentient or no, that made no sense.  "

    when I think you meant:

     " obvious reasons why, sentiment or no, that made no sense.  

    I think the sentence scans both ways.


    If the "n" wasn't right next to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    the "m" on the keyboard, these things wouldn't happen as often!

    What is the agenda of (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    a Democratic president if not to adhere to fundamental Democratic party values?   It is not so much that President Obama is preventing entitlement reform as it is that he is advocating for it.  Medicare has always been the bane of the Republicans.  Indeed, Ronald Reagan made his conservative name by denouncing it and calling it socialized medicine. Bob Dole campaigned on his proud vote against Medicare.  Paul Ryan is just the most recent iteration.  

    "Entitlement Reform" is code for cutting one way or another, and shifting not curbing the costs.  The ACA, to its credit, attempts to deal with the real issue: health care--availability, improvements and costs.  The jury is out on most of these objectives, but objectives they are and need to be tried and tested.  It does not engender confidence that the president, himself, has such doubts about ACA and its potential interactions with Medicare that he needs to "reform" it at this time--or use Medicare as a bargaining chip for his bigger war.  

    His stance on social security is also curious: After rejected by Congress, the president empaneled his own " Cat Food i" with long term enemies of such an entitlement: Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to "study" social security as a part of deficit reduction.  This "presidential committee" was staffed by the Peterson Foundation and Peterson Foundation supported groups. Pete Peterson  is another long term enemy of social security.

    After this committee failed  having adjourned without taking an official vote, efforts, once again,  were made as a part of "Cat Food II" (aka Super Committee). It failed on all fronts.   No, it is hard for me to agree with your rationalization--it is more likely that the president is taking the GOP's weakest sword and trying to sharpen it.


    Aaron Rodgers? (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:13:33 PM EST
    You mean Drew Brees.  Geaux Saints!!*

    *(I only say this because it looks like the Eagles are not even playoff bound, although we may still have a microscopic chance of sneaking in).

    Well, this Hateris Tebowis (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 01:28:37 PM EST
    Wanted to share that Timmeh the Tebow did preach a few Proverbs to his team before they faced down San Diego.  Can't wait to hear what he has to say to these guys if they make playoffs :)

    Sibelius goes against her own scientists (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    in continuing restrictions on  the availability of the morning after pill.

    One more reason I will never vote for her. Trust me on that one.

    Oh Newtie...how I how you are the nominee... (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 03:50:26 PM EST
    From TPM

    Well here's a tangible difference between a Newt Gingrich administration and a second term for President Obama if ever there was one. In Washington Wednesday, Gingrich told a crowd at the Republican Jewish Coalition forum that he'd nominate former Bush administration UN envoy John Bolton as Secretary of State.

    I hope he comes out for AG Alberto Gonzales as well.