Saturday College Football OpenThread

The picks (all 2 units unless otherwise indicated): Colorado +25 over Arizona State, Boise State -7 (3 units) over Utah State, Middle Tenn State +7 over North Texas, Washington State -1 over Oregon State, UNLV -10 over over Hawaii, California +25 (3 units) over UCLA, Tulsa -10 over Texas-El Paso, Bowling Green +10 over Mississippi State, Texas A&M -6 (3 units) over Mississippi, Nebraska -14 (3 units) over Purdue, Maryland -7 (4 units) over Virginia, Northwestern +10 over Wisconsin, TCU -25 (3 units) over Kansas, Missouri +8 over Georgia, Clemson -24 over Boston College, Florida Atlantic +13 over Marshall, Michigan -3 over Penn State, Kentucky +27 over Alabama, South Carolina -6 over Arkansas, Utah +9 over Stanford, Georgia Tech +7 over BYU, Navy +3 over Duke, Virginia Tech -9 (3 units) over Pittsburgh, Texas Tech -14 (3 units) over Iowa State, Michigan State -10 over Indiana, Oklahoma -14 (3 units) over Texas, Oregon (-13) (4 units) over Washington.

For the season 54-40-2 (.574) ATS, +30 units.

Go Gators!

Open Thread.

< Thursday Open Thread | NFL Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 154 (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    Cindy needs celibacy or a good divorce lawyer. Ick. (link)

    Volume 153
    Volume 152

    Have a great Saturday. Go Bruins! Go Bears! Go Cardinal! (Yes, I have too many college football teams I honk for, but I can't whittle it down. When they play each other I always root for the UC school, and when they play it's UCLA, since I grew up in LA. I really just need therapy.) Peace.

    Oh, those Cardinals. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    Rooting for the St. Louis varitety here.

    St. Louis varitety (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 10:20:50 AM EST
    are awesome in my unbiased opinion. ;o)



    Still an LA boy at heart (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    And with Magic now owning the team, I can once again be a fan. Go Blue!

    Will Mattingly lose his job after (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    he put a pinch runner in for Adrian?

    No chance, IMO (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    meant to add (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 12:36:23 PM EST
    Lasorda's pitching to Jack Clark, and at least Mattingly has better than Neidenfuer.

    Dadler (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    as a baseball fan, you know fun can be found at every level of the game.

    This 3rd strike call has been well practiced in front of a mirror.


    Funny as hell, but... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:13:51 PM EST
    ...that pitch looked like a ball all the way. At least he's enjoying himself tho.

    Yours is a bird (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    Dadler's is a color.

    The Cardinal (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 01:31:48 PM EST
    and the Cardinals.  Very different.

    Rosie the riveter...Excellent. (none / 0) (#18)
    by fishcamp on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 01:00:11 PM EST
    Gangnam Style in bluegrass (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    So, I lost it with a tea partier at the (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 02:08:25 PM EST
    dog park this morning. It wasn't pretty. I think the word 'idiot' escaped my lips. Just could not take it any more. I tried just walking away a few times, but every time I came back they kept railing about Obamacare - which I rail at too, but at least I have facts on my side.

    Aaaaargh. I hate to lose my temper - it makes me feel bad all day. Time for another beer.

    Don't feel bad ruffian... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by fishcamp on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    the same thing happened to me yesterday at the gym.  he said Obama was down to 28% and I said Boner should just call a vote.  he just went postal about me reading the NY Times, Washington Post, and Miami Herald;  watching the wrong news channels and they were shoving stuff down my throat and up my bu**.  He really hated it when I told him I watch al Jazeera News.  It was ugly.

    Al Jazeera reallly raises filks' hackles. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:20:05 PM EST
    How sad that politics has to permeate ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:35:55 PM EST
    ... their every thought and moment, to the point where one can't even enjoy a workout or a get-together any more. I mean, jeez, I'm a party official and quite active, yet I don't let it consume me like that.

    My advice is that the next time it happens, just laugh in the right-wing rodeo clown's face, tell him to get a life, and then turn your back and walk away. It's really not worth the expense of energy to get upset with idiots.



    I'm having a glass of wine, so...cheers! (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    I know what you mean, though - and it's pretty much all I can do to even watch the media coverage of the whole mess, so I usually don't.

    The thing that really irks me is when someone says they want to defund Obamacare, but they can't tell you why.  Some reporter was in a small town talking to people about it, and while he managed to find people opposed to it, he never asked them why.

    And I think I know why: when you ask, the answers you get range from "uh, uh, well, because...OBAMA!" to a collection of Fox News/Ted Cruz talking points that are not based in fact = all they're missing is the UFO and a roll of tinfoil.

    You know I've never been a fan of the ACA, and I've enumerated those reasons ad nauseam.  Yes, there are elements of it that should be the norm, but almost none of them work without an individual mandate.

    What kills me is the opportunity we missed to have a full and complete "national conversation" about the state of health care in this country.  There should have been an initial conversation that was just among the people - what did they want, what did they want to achieve, what did they think was the minimum standard of services and care - before ever - if ever - bringing the insurance and pharmaceutical industry into it.

    Without us, there is no one to sell health care services and products to, so why we are continually treated as if we don't matter, as if we have to beg for crumbs, is a mystery to me.  

    Time to top off the wine glass...


    Really hard to be the one defending (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 02:58:49 PM EST
    the conservative private insurance plan! This lady kept yelling at me that some families can't afford $175 a month in health insurance. I asked her how they afford getting sick, and of course the answer is they go to the emergency room.

    Any other time these people would be the first ones railing against poor people going to the emergency room and sticking all of us with the bill!

    Hit me again, bartender!


    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:27:07 PM EST
    I have thought the same thing and I have told conservatives that for YEARS literally years i have heard them b*tch and moan and whine and complain about people who had big screen TVs but did not have health insurance of course not having any idea about the health insurance market when they were saying this. And of course the lecture about how all the people were getting "free" coverage from the emergency rooms. I told one of them that Ronald Reagan was the one that signed the bill for people to get "free" care in the ER. I told him if he was so d*mn concerned about that he needed to travel to CA and spit on Reagan's grave then. He, of course, had no response to that one.

    Don't forget who it was meeting in those back room (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Amiss on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:10:17 PM EST
    Meetings with the health care companies.
    Yep.... Ted Kennedy, who never earned my trust or respect, treated Hillary Clinton like pure poop, not to even mention his earlier life.
    I knew we were gonna be in deep ca-ca from the beginning. He had absolutely nothing to lose.

    The bright side (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    They do seem to have figured out that Obamacare is not socialism, so there's that.

    Well, ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:44:03 PM EST
    ... not everyone has given up the fight.

    Fortunately (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    I have been able to largely keep my cool and stick to the facts. I have sent people to websites. I have changed some people's minds. Like you I am not a fan and there's plenty to criticize but darn these people are either too stupid to actually understand it or they are willfully ignorant. I had two people tell me the deductibles were 12K. I said no, that is the OUT OF POCKET maximum PER FAMILY. The GOP is really filling these people's minds with lies. I even sent one to a fact check website that refutes all of the GOP talking points and they refused to read it and screamed about how I had drank the cool aid. I was like so now an argument using facts is "drinking the cool aid". These people seriously need mental health care. I've never seen anything like it. Well, I have seen something like it back when Bill Clinton was President. These crackpots still think he was dealing drugs at the Mena Airport even though their own GOP found nothing and it turned out being an embarrassment to the GOP.

    Wish I had that fact at my fingertips this am (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:34:27 PM EST
    One of the things they were talking about was a 10k deductible - I bet they meant the out of pocket limit.

    I walked away wondering if they had ever seen an insurance plan in their lives. I know they have it. I guess they never learned anything about it, one guy kept yellng  'it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul!!'  I said of course,that is what insurance IS!

     Sweet jeebus..


    It is sad but I guess (none / 0) (#43)
    by fishcamp on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:51:16 PM EST
    we need to be nicer to these people that spout endless clichés, meaningless statistics, and any other drivel that makes them right and us wrong, wait until they practically hyperventilate and make one simple statement...let your people vote.

    When they get all red in the face over (none / 0) (#47)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:04:55 PM EST
    it, and start looking like they're going to start spitting in anger, I have been soooo tempted to ask, "have you checked out the mental health provisions?"

    I haven't done that, mainly because mental health is nothing to joke about, but I sometimes think it might let people know that they're out of control.


    Oh that is a great one Anne (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 09:38:55 PM EST
    I am going to use it next time. I know it is no joking matter, but maybe better than calling them idiots!

    No (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:25:43 PM EST
    the probably meant the deductible because apparently the GOP has been lying to these people and telling them that the deductibles are anywhere from 6K to 12K per year. 10K probably is the out of pocket maximum but the GOP knows these people are not too bright and will believe whatever they tell them. I guess most people have never read their benefits they get from their employer and rely on the HR person to explain them therefore they are very easily fooled by the GOP.

    From my research it seems the dedcutibles are as follows: Gold: 0, Silver 2,000 and Bronze 5,000. Now that is for the federal but i've also read that in NY the bronze deductible is 3K. KY and NY must be gonig pretty smoothly because I haven't heard too many complaints about those. Apparently the one in RI is a hit too.


    I have had similar conversations, (none / 0) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 14, 2013 at 08:44:35 AM EST
    and found that most were not aware with of the difference between out-of-pocket and deductible.   Health insurance can be confusing, and the disinformation campaign is exacerbating,

    Cardinals! Cardinals! Cardinals! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    Go, Cards!   Two games now, keep it up!

    Cardinal! Cardinal! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:22:55 PM EST
    Oh, no! Utah 27, Stanford 21. Too bad, so sad.

    Well, okay, not really ...


    New Entry to Pac 12 (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    Right about now (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 07:56:02 PM EST
    the biggest cyclone in recorded history is making landfall and hitting the most vulnerable to flooding, most densely populated part of the world.
    At least one atmospheric scientist believes a catastrophic storm surge--the rise of ocean levels pushed by a storm's winds and pressure--may now be "a certainty". Storm surge is by far Phailin's biggest threat to lives along India's coastline. Ocean levels may rise as much as 6 meters (20 feet) near and to the northeast of the storm's landfall location, pushing an inexorable wall of water inland. Storm surge of nearly 3 meters may stretch as far northeast as the vulnerable Ganges Delta of Bangladesh--home to tens of millions. The JTWC estimates that waves of up to 17 meters (56 feet) are already buffeting the Bay of Bengal.   

    Happy Thanksgiving :-/

    On May 16, 2009... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:00:58 PM EST
    ...a collaboration between the British medical journal The Lancet and University College London released the first UCL Lancet Commission report, assessing the impact of global warming on global health, and on populations.
    The report presents...two distorted maps... density equalizing cartograms depicting a comparison of undepleted CO2 emissions by country for 1950-2000...

    The first image shows the world in terms of carbon emissions. America, for instance, is huge. So is China. And Europe. Africa is hardly visible.

    The second map shows the world in terms of increased mortality -- that is to say, deaths -- from climate change. Suddenly, America virtually disappears. So does Europe. Africa, however, is grotesquely distended. South Asia inflates.

    Climate Change Effects Hugely Unequal Globally


    I hope..... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 08:38:17 AM EST
    I hope people arguing out of pocket maxes realize that the out of pocket max that Obama has been tauting is the IN-Network-Only out of pocket max.

    There is a separate out of pocket max for OUT of network providers. And that out of pocket max is either very high or unlimited,  and is not regulated by Obamacare.  And, if you see an out of network provider, the provider can bill you for what the insurance company didn't allow (aka balance bill).  This means you're billed for the copay PLUS any extra that insurance didn't think was an allowable charge. It's a common practice.

    That wouldn't be so much of a problem except that:

    The networks have gotten excruciatingly thin on Obamacare plans
    , because insurers are discounting their reimbursements on these plans so that they're lower than customary reimbursements.

    I thought it was a personal situation that none of my specialists were included in any of the plans on our Exchange.  But, it's a national trend.  People are actually starting to call it quasi-Medicaid, suggesting all of the huge problems therein, like limited doctor access so people line up around the block to see doctors, like people dying waiting for doctors.  

    Patient advocates are talking about it.  Hospitals are having to sue to try and get into these plans.  Hospitals not on these plans are losing their insurees due to being excluded from these plans, of course. But they're losing doubly! Because of the influx of new insurees that Obamacare would theoretically bring to hospitals, Obamacare CUT DSH payments (funding for poverty care).  And it added Medicaid patients to the rolls.  Because of the Obamacare HMOs, hospitals like this could collapse under their own weight.

    Say it, please, "I love HMOs" because that's what you're endorsing, the HMO model.

    So when you're busting your hiney defending Obamacare HMO's, you're defending something that was reviled in the 90's. The Patients Bill of Rights was a result of the horrors of the HMO's. But you'll never hear a word from Democrats about sneaking these HMOs into a system where we force people to buy them.  Now why is that, if they're such an awesome cost-cutting measure?

    It's bad enough that Medicaid is pretty horrible for human beings.  It's worse because now we're paying insurance companies in large premium dollars to create a similarly ugly situation for a larger group of people, with the full force cheerleading from Democrats like some of you. Insurance companies have gotten around lifetime caps by taking care away altogether from people. I think you're going to reach a point where you feel really silly for busting an artery over this insurance giveaway disguised as a social program.  Protect your health.  Really, arguing the glories of Obamacare is not worth your time.

    People get so firmly intrenched in their politics that they can't see the facts.  Please, the Us versus them is not Democrats versus Republicans, it's the citizens versus the corporate government.

    And btw (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 08:53:20 AM EST
    About these narrow network plans.  Typically, they're ONLY offered in the Exchanges.  Thus, if you want tax credits, you are FORCED to buy an HMO plan.  So the govt and their Insurance Co buddies have forced people who need subsidies, who are sicker, poorer, probably had previously less access to care to buy quasi-Medicaid.  FORCING them to buy quasi-Medicaid.

    For this, you raise your blood pressure in arguments?


    When my Cardiologist saw how much (none / 0) (#69)
    by Amiss on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    the co-pay was on my husband's plan from his work, he changed himself from specialist to a G.P., there was such a huge difference.

     When ACA passed and we were still across the state line in Ga., our G.P. there was close to retiring anyway, so he just went ahead and retired.


    Now (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    having done some work with rural health in GA I can tell you that the AMA and assorted other lobbyists who do their bidding do a real disservice to people who live in more rural areas. The doctors say they will not go to these areas because there is not enough money to be made. Okay. Well, that's find but then they don't want Nurse Practitioners to go there either. A lot of these areas could be served by nurse practitioners who are willing to go to these areas but the AMA wants to restrict their ability to write prescriptions because they don't want the competition in general.

    Insurance companies have lobbyists. Doctors have lobbyists. You and I have no lobbyist so we get ignored. All we have is our vote.


    The problem (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 08:43:07 AM EST
    is that Republicans are not making this argument. They are not discussing this particular problem with the ACA. They are just outright lying about deductibles and everything else. They apparently either know or think that everybody that votes for them is stupid. The thing is making these arguments would be criticizing the for profit insurance model which really is the crux of the problem and they apparently are LOATHE to do that.

    Also (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 08:46:20 AM EST
    what a lot of people do not know is that this out of network thing has been a problem for a long time. You go out of network and you are going to get killed. Every insurance plan I have had over the last 20 years has been this way.

    The main problem is that the (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 09:39:20 PM EST
    the subsidies are tied to the second-lowest cost Silver plan and those plans "will be a narrow-network plan with significant limits on which providers the consumer can go to."

    Add to that another sleeper issue in "Obamacare"--the subsidies are tied to the second-lowest cost Silver plan. If you buy a plan that costs more, the incremental cost is not subsidized.

    The big surprise here will be that in many states that second-lowest cost plan will be a narrow-network plan with significant limits on which providers the consumer can go to. In fact, in many cases, the narrow-network plan will look very much like a Medicaid network.

    In California, for example, the Blue Shield exchange offering is limited to 24,000 doctors compared to the standard Blue Shield network that covers 64,000 docs.

    The lowest cost California plan comes from insurer Health Net. The LA Times is reporting that Health Net is offering, "less than half what some other companies are offering in Southern California." The Times reports that Health Net is limiting its network to one-third its usual employer network. In San Diego, the company will only have 204 primary care physicians in its network.

    It's true that out of network costs (none / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 04:50:22 PM EST
    have been a problem. But I have always found my doctors of choice to be in whatever network I had. Although I could be wrong, I believe the problem that started Teresa in her research was trying to keep her doctors of choice but not finding them part of the networks available to her.

    That is (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    correct. And i understand her frustration BUT I also think if you're writing a critique of the ACA and out of network, you should be coming from the standpoint that the ACA did nothing to alleviate this problems. Here is my problem: before it even came out wingers were whining (and i know this is not Teresa) about how it was doing this or doing that like the system was just perfect before. I think we should hold or critiques to the same standard and not act like some of these problems are new when they are existing problems.

    As complicated as the Health Insurance (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    Industry is, it can really be simplified by understanding this one business axiom:

    The less care they provide, the more money they make.

    Even if it was a regulated system, the basis of it is unfair. It's not like any other business in our so-called free enterprise system. Normally, businesses hope to gain sales and profits by providing the consumer with more features and benefits than their competitors. Theoretically, this competition ends up providing consumers with the best available value.

    But, the abomination we've been given is the worst of all worlds. Nobody questions that our Representatives have sold out to the health industry monopoly. So, with nowhere else to go, and every incentive for the industry to provide minimal service, how can anyone say that this program is anything but a criminal enterprise foisted upon the citizenry by a conspiracy consisting of The President, Congress, and the Health Insurance Moguls?

    Surely, there were cheaper, more efficient ways to fix the "prior conditions," and minimal availability for the really destitute. It seems like, in order to fix a minor problem, they screwed up everyone. The only things that could have improved our rotten system was single-payer, and/or public option. And, is it any wonder why those two were non-negotiable from the get go?

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 14, 2013 at 05:39:49 AM EST
    precisely right and for all the complaining about the ACA that is the crux of the problem.

    BTD, please estimate the amount of time it takes (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:27:38 AM EST
    you to figure out which teams you will back on a given Saturday.  

    2 hours (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:47:39 AM EST
    I lean heavily on the Sagarin ratings.

    You might note (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 09:03:17 AM EST
    that PREDICTOR counsel a strong play on Washington (+13) over Oregon, the rating spread is 5 and Wsshington is the home team.

    I'm ignoring it based on the eyeball test and what I feel are some deceptive scores from Oregon, who has uncharacteristically taken it easy on its opponents in the second half.

    If the line was 20+ that would be something to accept.

    But here I'm basically betting on Oregon to win by 2 scores, and that those  scores will be TDs.


    I think this game is going to be ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 02:08:49 PM EST
    ... much closer than most people believe it will be.

    If the Husky offense can play ball control and keep their Duck counterparts off the field, i.e., limit them to about four possessions per half, and the much-improved UW defense can force a few key stops in the 2nd and 3rd quarters so that the team finds itself within striking distance in the 4th, Washington could steal this one -- just like they almost did last week at Stanford.

    But it's imperative that the Huskies keep this game from turning into a track meet, because there's little or no chance that UW can match Oregon score for score. The Ducks' offensive firepower will prove overwhelming and the visitors will win easily by 3+ TDS.

    My prediction: Oregon 35, Washington 28. Go Dawgs!


    15:00 4Q: Oregon 31, Washington 24. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:51:19 PM EST
    Huskies find themselves within striking distance.

    38-24...go ducks (none / 0) (#46)
    by fishcamp on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:01:23 PM EST
    7:37 4Q: Oregon 45, Washington 24. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    Not any more.

    Bettors like the Tent (none / 0) (#3)
    by fishcamp on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:54:25 AM EST
    are almost continually thinking about the odds.  They memorize the sports page and other sheets every day so when it comes time to put it up in the blog it's already a done deal.  And no I'm not going to tempt fate again by fishing in the closed Everglades National Park.  Our governor, baldy, says he's not spending any state money to open federal parks.The Keys will be too crowed this weekend to go out on the water anyway.

    We have a bald Gov. who also is not (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 09:07:15 AM EST
    stepping in for the feds re national parks in CA. Furthermore, he signed a bill banning lead in bullets (to benefit the condors) but vetoed a bill banning semi automatic rifles. He says CA has strict gun laws already. Has the NRA co-opted Jerry Brown?

    That law would've been overturned ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:28:42 PM EST
    ... in federal court, if recent SCOTUS rulings on such issues provide us with any guidelines -- and the NRA was already threatening a lawsuit if he did sign it into law.

    But Gov. Brown also signed measures that prohibit the conversion of ammunition clips to increase capacity and further require firearms to be fully locked away and secured via gun safes in those households where mentally ill persons or felons reside. And he had previously approved a bill prohibiting the open carry of firearms in urban areas.

    Your governor is someone who's become very adept at playing the long game, and who has learned from his previous intemperate experiences to not joust with political windmills. He martials his personal capital strategically and wisely, by offering battle only upon ground of his own choosing, and by avoiding those fights where the present status quo would remain in place regardless of outcome.

    Some people might call that a lack of imagination. I call it foresight, and the hallmark of someone who endeavors to still be remain effective in the later rounds, by not throwing so many punches in the early going that he eventually drops his guard at an inopportune moment. As the Republicans in Washington are no doubt discovering to their dismay, there's often a very fine line between imagination and recklessness.

    And if war can be considered politics by force of arms, then please consider that "Pickett's Charge" at the Battle of Gettysburg provided a very compelling storyline and was certainly grand theatre. But when all was said and done, the Confederates still charged foolishly into the very teeth of their Union opponents, were effectively chewed to pieces for their efforts, and were never again able to take the offensive for the duration of the Civil War.



    I get the distinct feeling (none / 0) (#60)
    by Amiss on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 11:03:12 PM EST
    that you have about as much respect and admiration for the Guv as I have.
    Boy is he not a real jewel?
    I think about some of the crap he has done (and convicted of) and the sad thing is: about all I am able to do atm is try to spread the good word and wonder deep down how some of our neighbors with seemingly good sense and appearing to have a good moral compass could vote him into office.

    What's up? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Amiss on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    No GATORS vs LSU? Or did I miss it?

    Perhaps he's superstitious, and ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:36:26 PM EST
    ... doesn't want to jinx Florida.

    LOL too bad (none / 0) (#50)
    by Amiss on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:14:28 PM EST
    Maybe he jinxed them by not posting! Between the poor calls and the players really being in the pits, they lost. I believe final was LSU 17 Gators 6. Was really disheartening.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 09:22:20 AM EST
    October 7
    Angry Young Woman Uses Her 'Telekinetic Powers' in a NYC Cafe and freaks out the customers.

    Book recommend: just finished tomorrow's (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    book club pick:  "Caleb's Crossing," by Geraldine Brooks.  

    On the list! thanks! (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    I just finished listening to JK Rowling's "The Casual Vacancy", and also her mystery under the name Robert Galbraith "The Cuckoo's Calling'.  Both very good...but 'Vacancy' is really sad. She has such a good grasp of human nature, it is a little depressing, but there is wry humor there too.  Quite the writer, I must say. I hope she sticks with it.

    Did you read all the Harry Potter (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 02:10:22 PM EST

    My latest audio book was "Boys in the Boat."  Non fiction. U of Wash. Men's 8 crew wins 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Lots of U.S. and German history. Did you know there were roing machines on the Titanic?


    I listened to them all on audio (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    B'way actor Jim Dale is the reader on all the HP books, and he is marvelous. Now I think that is the only medium I can use for JK Rowling! These adult books have a different narrator, but just as good.  It is a little disconcerting to hear her write about teen sex though....can't help but think of the HP kids.

    'Boys on the Boat' sounds really good. Love that kind of story!


    I have d/l cuckoo (none / 0) (#61)
    by Amiss on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 11:10:48 PM EST
    But haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I am looking forward to it tho. What is your rating? Seems to be pretty well enjoyed and rated everywhere I have checked.

    I liked it a lot (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    I guess I would give it a 7 out of 10.  I appreciated the lack of violence for violence's sake. Liked the dialogue, and though I had my suspicions of who done it, it kept me guessing right to the end. And Rowling living the life she has since HP hit it big, she has a good insight into the perils of fame and the paparazzi culture.

    Will check it out (none / 0) (#30)
    by Amiss on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    on my Kindle.

    Thanks! It's already on my Kindle (none / 0) (#74)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    so I'll read it next :)

    Bad Call on that TD (none / 0) (#32)
    by Amiss on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:16:37 PM EST
    for LSU.

    Donklephant love (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    I've been watching these two flirting while pretending not to flirt since about 2002. The elephant would watch the donkey all the time, and the donkey would watch back, while they pretended to hate each others' guts. The donkey would pretend not to give a sh*t -- not speaking to him, not returning his calls, but the whole time she'd look for excuses to be around while the elephant was in the room. It got to be pretty annoying after a while -- the donkey would be flirting her a** off, and the whole time saying it was nothing, just a little bipartisanship, all in a spirit of compromise.

    It only got worse after 2004 -- the donkey practically throwing herself at the elephant, while acting all coy, like she didn't even care, the elephant behaving like a cold bastard toward her, while anybody with half a brain in their head knew he really wanted to f*ck her brains out.

    The go*damn' donkey got even worse around 2008 or so -- smarmy coy looks, suggestive touching, soppy goo-goo eyes, all the time insisting there was nothing to it. Finally, about the time of the health care vote, she was all but falling all over the elephant, and it became insufferable. It was all I could do to keep from yelling "for crissakes, why don't you two just get a room, already?"

    candid photo here

    It was the soppy goo-goo eyes that blew me away...

    Interactive: (none / 0) (#37)
    by desertswine on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 04:06:11 PM EST
    Who's Pulling the Strings   (From Moyers and Company)

    Rabbit! (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:04:53 PM EST
    On a totally different note, this Scottish YouTube is hilarious (except for at the end, when the "thump" may not have boded well for the bunny).  Warning:  Lots of "f words" in the clip, so be aware if you watch this at work.  And also be aware that the Scottish accents are very heavy.  I understood most of what they were saying, but in any case, you'll get the gist:

    Duracell Bunny.

    Perhaps the guys in the car should have employed the Holy Hand Grenade.

    Primer on healthcare reform/ACA timeline (none / 0) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:08:23 PM EST
    since it seems many are forgetting what actually took place, who met w/whom from which industries.....PBS Frontline - Chronology

    A key snippet:

    Lobbyists and representatives from the medical, hospital, pharmaceutical and insurance industries are among the attendees. Ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) makes a surprise appearance.

    "The purpose of this forum is ... to determine how we lower costs for everyone, improve quality for everyone, and expand coverage to all Americans," says the president. "And our goal will be to enact comprehensive health care reform by the end of this year."

    "What was most interesting ... was the people who were in the room that day. Many of these players who certainly for years, if not decades, had a record of opposing any sort of health care reform efforts. ... Every single one of those people gathered at the March White House summit wanted one thing: a seat at the table," explains Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly.

    The insurance industry pledges support, but it's keyed to the president backing an individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance. The industry also wants Obama to drop the idea of a "public option" -- a government-run health care plan.

    and another regarding the oft-repeated myth of a deal w/the insurance industry:

    Fall 2009 Democrats take the lead; war with the insurance industry; more deals are cut.......And the following Saturday, the president takes on the insurance industry in his weekly Internet address: "They're flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions, and they're funding studies designed to mislead the American people," he says. "It's all smoke and mirrors. It's bogus."

    But Karen Ignani and her allies fight back by funneling millions of dollars into a tough ad campaign against the legislation sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce.

    Passage of the ACA, while not w/o its flaws was a huge achievement.  Varied interests needed to be represented.  We should remember the goal - to provide protection against catastrophic financial ruin because of an illness or injury, basic coverage/screenings for those who heretofore have not had it, and the bringing of additional money into the pool to eventually lower premiums.  

    People need to remember, there are whole segments of the population employed in healthcare and supporting industries - over 11%.  Many of these people like and want to keep their jobs too.  They have families to support just like you.  The only reason gov't models such as Medicare and Medicaid work is because the pay scale is well below cost.  Such a model (if even accepted by care providers, IMO - unlikely) would undoubtedly lead to a significant hit to our economy.  Rightly so it was opposed by those who stood to lose much were it enacted.

    Whole segments of the health care (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    system support a single payment system.

    Physicians for a National Health Program

    Our Mission: Single-Payer National Health Insurance.

    Medicare For All | National Nurses United

    Jan 23, 2013 - A single-payer system, like Medicare, is the cure for America's ailing healthcare.

    Doctors, nurses to demonstrate for single-payer health system

    A link to the number of the people who work in the health care industry in no way indicates that they do not support a single payer system or that they would lose their jobs due to a single payer system.

    Doctors, nurses, unions and their health care workers have come out in strong support for a single payer system. They don't seem to share your concern for their livelihood. Studies showing major positive impact of single payer to the economy definitely contradict your assertion.

    News Updates and Articles of Interest on HR676 and Single Payer Healthcare


    The IHSP has conducted research for members of Congress and state legislatures as well as NNOC/CNA, and received international renown for research studies on cost and charges in the hospital industry, the pharmaceutical industry, hospital staffing, and other healthcare policy.

    Robert Fountain, a frequent economics consultant for the California Public Employees Retirement System (Cal-PERS), served as a consultant on the study.

    2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages

    Establishing a national single-payer style healthcare reform system would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study released today. It may be viewed at www.CalNurses.org.

    The number of jobs created by a single-payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008.

    Who is strongly against a single payer system? The health insurance industry and some of the people who work for the industry. This industry and their worker advocates make these claims on a regular basis without providing any proof whatsoever to substantiate their claims.


    PNHP website quotes poll that disagrees with you (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by vicndabx on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    We asked respondents (physicians engaged in direct patient care) to choose the single option they preferred: 1) "The current health care system, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance"; 2) "A universal insurance program in which everybody is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by government and financed by taxpayers"; or 3) "The current health care system, with the addition of new tax credits for buying, or tax penalties for failing to buy, health insurance".

    9% - The Current Health Care System

    42% - Single-Payer National Health Insurance Program

    49% - The Current System With Addition of Tax Credits or Penalties


    Other points I would make:
     - Doctors generally would prefer to deal w/a single entity for claims processing - I don't doubt that.  However, laws such as HIPAA and it's Administrative Simplification provisions have greatly simplified how data is sent to/from payers.  Further, these changes provide uniformity and have significant potential to decrease expenses for all parties involved.  Finally, service providers such as billing services & clearinghouses (jobs/industries I'm sure the survey you quote relies on) facilitate a single point of entry for providers.

    - The study you linked to assumes the current Medicare system as the model to be applied across the board w/an increase in overall spending and a number of assumptions I certainly am not qualified to delve into.  It would be interesting to see the study scrutinized by an impartial third-party w/adequate experience w/the numbers quoted.  

    Adding all Americans to an expanded Medicare could be achieved for $63 billion beyond the current $2.1 trillion in direct healthcare spending

    - It also assumes something I highly doubt is true - that providers of care across the country will accept lower rates - and likely further reduction w/an expansion in coverage if the current physician fee-schedule is used.  Bear in mind, not every doctor deals w/Medicare & Medicaid today.  I suspect many do not have any idea how these gov't programs pay and the volume of patients needed to support their and their staff's standard of living.

    We could play dueling links all day.  Nonetheless, the fact that we can illustrates the point I've been making.  That is, something that accommodates the concerns of the widest range of stakeholders is what the current incarnation of the ACA represents.

    Why not give it time to work and see if it achieves its goals?


    The goals achieved will be (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    to fill the coffers of the insurance industry at the expense of the people who need health care.

    Universal health care will still not be available in the U.S. The U.S. under this system will continue to pay twice as much for services and prescription drugs. Many people will not be able to afford actual health care due to deductibles and co-pays. People in the U.S. will continue to have to pay increasingly large premiums for less and less coverage. Increases to out of  pocket expenses and co-pays are the norm. Just talk to those in the individual market who do not qualify for large government subsidizes and ask them how much more that they have to pay out of pocket this year.


    I think that (4.00 / 4) (#75)
    by sj on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 04:46:18 PM EST
    vicabndx might be considering his own job. If I remember correctly he's in the health insurance biz.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 07:29:42 PM EST
    You got troll-rated for that comment?

    I would think that would be highly relevant to his position/bias, but apparently it's trolling.

    Who knew?


    Consider (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 14, 2013 at 11:23:20 AM EST
    the source of the troll-rating, Yman.

    Happy Valley, my foot. Shouldn't (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:26:22 PM EST
    Michigan be able to beat the devastated Nittany Lions?  What is a Nittany Lion, BTW?

    The original "Nittany Lion" was a ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 04:13:13 AM EST
    ... lone cougar -- the last one in central Pennsylvania, actually -- which once roamed the hills around Mt. Nittany near State College at the end of the 19th century. The animal managed to elude all attempts to kill or capture it, and apparently became something of a local legend. The name was adopted by Penn State teams in 1907.

    Sorry about the Wolverines.


    i'm warching (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 09:38:10 PM EST
    This tv show that is swearing aliens flew over george w. Bush' s ranch in texas. Were they headed to pick him up? Lol.  I really feel sorry for any sane people left in texas. It seems texas breeds a special kind of crazy these days.