NFL Sunday Open Thread

John Amato and I finally got back together to talk sports, specifically NFL and World Series (Go Cards! Beat the whiny Sox!):

Here are our picks (disagreement in BOLD (A for Armando, J for John)): Washington Redskins +12 (A), Denver Broncos -12 (J), San Francisco 49ers -15 over Jacksonville Jaguars, Green Bay Packers -10 (J), Minnesota Vikings (+10) (A), Detroit Lions -3 over Dallas Cowboys, Cincinnati Bengals -7 (J), New York Jets +7 (A), New York Giants +6 over Philadelphia Eagles, Cleveland Browns +9 (A), Kansas City Chiefs (-9) (J), Pittsburgh Steelers -3 over Oakland Raiders, Miami Dolphins +7 over New England Patriots, NEw Orleans Saints -11 over Buffalo Bills (A, J no pick), Arizona Cards -3 (A), Atlanta Falcons +3 (J), Seattle Seahawks -11 (J), St Louis Rams +11 (A).

Open Thread.

< Friday Open Thread | DOJ to Use Warrantless Surveillance in Criminal Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Niners had to go to London... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 10:24:48 AM EST
    ...to play the friggin' Jaguars???

    My apologies to the fans in London.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 169 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    The Fed is passionate about helping mom and pop. (link)

    And the rest of last week's comics, in the event, gasp, that you missed any:

    Volume 168
    Volume 167
    Volume 166
    Volume 165
    Volume 164
    Volume 163

    Get your asses to "church," my fellow heathens. ;-)

    Yankee fans (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    complaining about whiny teams is like the Church of Scientology complaining about the Jehovah's Wittnesses.

    What do Yankee fans have to whine about? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    Greatest sports franchise in US history.

    Poor Yankee haters have a problem dealing with that.


    Thou dost protest too (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    much, Sir..

    ..in the words of the Immortal Bard and sure Red Sox fan (if he were alive today and an American.)


    Sox fans are ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 11:03:42 AM EST
    Case in point . . .

    So l forgot to put the ;-) (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    at the end..

    As Mom used to say, I think somone's a little grumpy this morning.

    In closing and for what it's worth, I will just say though that Foxx, Cochrane, Simmons, and Grove were better than Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri et al..


    Red Sox fans are not ridiculous. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 07:34:41 PM EST
    Obnoxious, annoying and insufferable, yes. But not ridiculous.

    Now, Marlins fans are ridiculous -- at least, the ones who bother to show up at games.

    You could also make a case that Oakland A's fans are ridiculous, too. But then, that's exactly what they want you to think, so you'd just be playing into their hands.

    As far as your comment about the Yankees being the "Greatest Franchise EVAH!" is concerned, I'll agree with you, with one caveat -- and from a Dodgers fan, that's really saying something.

    That caveat is provided that you restrict your "Greatest" label to major league baseball only. Otherwise, fans of the Green Bay Packers, Boston Celtics, L.A. Lakers and Montreal Canadiens might take some legitimate issue with you, and start seeking to compare their apples to your oranges.

    And then there's ESPN, which says that "the Memphis Grizzlies provide the best return on investment for fans in all of pro sports." Now, how are you going to argue with the network that hired Keith Olbermann not once, not twice, but three times?



    My brother is a Marlins fan. They (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:03:29 PM EST
    have won two WS in there short life span and players everyone admires have started w/ the Marlins.

    And the fans show up when they're winning. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:15:38 PM EST
    The rest of the time, not so much. But hey, the Marlins' 2003 run to the World Series and subsequent triumph over the Yankees was definitely one for the memory books. That journeyman manager Jack McKeon took over a team going nowhere at midseason and finally got his ring and his due, it's one of the great stories in major league baseball lore.

    Padres fans, including me, lose interest (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:34:00 PM EST
    when the owners won's shell out for a team with a hope of winning.

    All (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 07:36:55 AM EST
    fans are ridiculous.

    But none so ridiculous as ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 08:13:55 PM EST
    ... the guy with the condescending attitude who thinks he's above it all.

    And yet right now... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 11:20:28 AM EST
    ...the St. Louis Cardinals could easily stake a claim to being the best franchise in the country in any sport. My dad, however, was born in NYC in 1927, kind of a good year for murderer's row, and pops still brags that he met Eleanor Roosevelt twice as a kid AND saw Babe Ruth play. So, you know, my respect for the Yanks runs pretty deep, even as a guy who bled Dodger Blue as a boy.

    Gassed in WWI (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 11:42:39 AM EST
    severly epileptic, alcoholic, and badly hungover from the night before, Alexander coming in from the bullpen and saving that game in the 29? World Series might be my all-time favorite baseball story..

    Player-manager Hornsby supposedly started telling him how he wanted Alexander to pitch to the next batter, suddenly stopped and said "imagine me telling you how to pitch."


    Maybe you remember (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    the never-ending, un-winnable argument every NYC kid engaged in:

    Mickey.....Duke, or,.....Willie?


    Football story to warm the heart (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    Aw.... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by desertswine on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    Lou Reed died...   Goodbye, and thanks.  RIP

    This concert was (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    :( Sad day . . . (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 01:16:08 PM EST
    I remember when the Stones (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    did Shattered he said "there's only one Lou Reed."

    He was right about that.

    His real mentor was Delmore Schwartz, not Warhol.


    I was totally entranced at age 12 ... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    ... by Lou Reed's "Walk on the Wild Side," even though I had absolutely no idea what he was really singing about. Well, my mother sure did and was appalled that I was listening to it, and told me not to -- which, of course, made that song the irresistible equivalent of a bug lamp to a moth.

    But this is the way I'll always want to remember the man: Jamming out, garage band-style, with "Sweet Jane."

    Aloha to a true original and trailblazing giant, the godfather of punk and grunge, who dragged commercial rock'n'roll to the edge and then gave it a none-too-gentle shove.


    Woo Hoo! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Zorba on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    Go Cards!  My heart was in my throat right up until the end!
    An obstruction call.  Who would have thought it?  This is why I keep saying, you never know what can happen in one baseball game.

    ... the correct call. The only ones griping are the Red Sox and their fans (natch!), and those people who don't know the longstanding applicable rule regarding obstruction of a baserunner.

    I have yet to see, though (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 05:57:25 PM EST
    a clarification re the three-foot clause in that rule, as every photo and video that I have seen sure doesn't look like the runner was within three feet of the base line.  Why in the world would he not make the shortest distance between two points -- third and home -- a straight line?

    (Plus, that the runner pushed back down on the third baseman looks a bit obstructive, as well.)


    Thanks Towanda (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 06:27:52 PM EST
    I was wondering when someone would notice the runner wasn't in the 3rd to home baseline.

    Where (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 06:30:53 PM EST
    That's a very deceptive angle. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:04:00 PM EST
    Looking at that play from another viewpoint, Cardinal baserunner Allen Craig was just arising after sliding into third, when he's tripped up by Red Sox third baseman Will Middlebrooks just inside the third base line. Allen's already falling in your photo, and he's only two feet from the base itself.

    Per the MLB rule book, obstruction is defined as "the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner."

    Further, "[a]fter a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner." (Emphasis is mine.)

    The runner has the right to attempt to advance upon an errant throw, and he cannot be physically impeded by a fielder who's not in possession of the ball, regardless of whether or not the obstruction is intentional. There's no question that the umpire made the correct call in this instance.



    I know what you're saying, but... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 11:00:21 AM EST
    ...I just don't agree. The third baseman was in his normal fielding position, and nowhere near what is generally considered the basepath. If you want to argue he intentionally raised his arms to obstruct the runner, I could see that, but not anything to do with the basepath. IMO, of course.

    Your angle shows the same thing (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 09:02:40 PM EST
    I think you're seeing what you want to see. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 04:01:36 AM EST
    Look at the video. Middlebrooks dives vainly for the errant throw while Craig slides into third, and when Craig arises and attempts to head home, he's tripped up by a supine Middlebrooks, who's raising his legs in a curl.

    At no time during that play was Craig out of the baseline. He slid into third, and had the right to pick himself up and attempt to head for home when he saw that the throw had gotten by Middlebrooks into left field, when they got tangled up.

    It was clearly obstruction, and further it mimicked the very example provided in the aforementioned MLB rule book! Without question, the umps got it right.

    The only "controversy" that exists here is solely in the minds of those who either don't know or understand the rule, or refuse for whatever reason to acknowledge its obvious applicability in this particular instance.



    How can Craig be "guilty" of ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 04:35:35 AM EST
    ... obstruction, when Middlebrooks had already failed to catch the errant throw, and at that moment was out of the play because the ball is in left field?

    A baserunner is guilty of interference if he impedes a fielder's attempt to either throw or catch the ball, i.e., a runner forced out at second or third who clearly slides out of the base path and away from the base in an attempt to take out the fielder as he's relaying the ball to another fielder, and thus break up a potential double play.

    That was clearly not the case here.


    I absolutely agree, Donald (none / 0) (#21)
    by Zorba on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    Way, way back when I played softball in high school, it was pounded into us: you may not block the baseline.  Period.
    And you simply cannot make an exception for players who may be injured.  If you do, you can depend upon players pretending to be injured so that they can block the runner.  No exceptions.

    ... while laid out in a supine position on his stomach, he raised both of his legs in a curl and tripped the runner heading home. The ump's call was both instinctual and instantaneous, a real no-brainer.

    I bet you can count on one hand the number of times that sort of obstruction call is made in major league baseball over the course of a given season, and still have a couple fingers left over.

    But the rules are the rules, and that's why only the best-rated umpires are allowed to work the playoffs and World Series.



    I object to sports headlines saying that the call (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by DFLer on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 05:04:07 PM EST
    "gave" the Cards the win. BS..if the fielder had not tripped up the base runner, he would have scored. The run was there.

    Absolutely correct (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:33:52 PM EST
    Check out the headline:

    "Cardinals Win On Obstruction Call"

    Here's ESPN replay of THE PLAY.

    Check it out, and, then tell me that wasn't obstruction. So flagrant, I don't know why there's any controversy at all.

    Well, of course, Red Sox & whining do kind of go together.


    I wouldn't call it "flagrant," which ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 04:15:23 AM EST
    ... would imply that Middlebrooks tripped Craig up on purpose. The play clearly happened so fast that the third baseman had no time to react and get out of the runner's way as he attempted to head home on the errant throw.

    But that said, the applicable rule clearly provides no exception for an inadvertent act. Some people might think it unfair that it doesn't, but hey, them's the rules, and rules is rules.



    Then there's all this (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    non-stop whining about the "whining"..

    The grapes in NY have been particularly sour this fall..


    Dinner (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Zorba on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    Italian sausage and peppers, made with the last of our garden peppers, and crusty bread to eat it with.  A salad, with the last of our garden tomatoes.  And for dessert, an apple pie made with apples from our trees.  Simple, but good.
    Yay, garden!

    Sounds great. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    What time would you like us all to come over?

    LOL! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 05:22:36 PM EST
    By the time you get here, Donald, it will ll be eaten up.       ;-)

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 170 (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:43:42 AM EST
    World Series... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    The World Series is supposed to be exciting.
    For the players, it is the culmination of years of work - and perhaps lifelong dreams.

    And yet - as I watched game 4 on Fox (yuck), there were two announcers who sounded as if they were intoning some oratory at a funeral. And they never shut up. If they had been in the seats next to me, I would have tried to get them ejected - or perhaps spill some soda on them.

    Their insights, of which they were obviously proud, were so staggeringly pedestrian that it could make ones head spin if their verbal emissions were allowed to penetrate ones consciousness.

    An example:
    "It's not when you get the outs, it's if you get the outs."


    Mute buttons don't solve the problem - because they mute everything - including the sounds from the ballpark that one may wish to hear.

    So, you have to find a volume level that is sufficiently low as to render the verbiage unintelligible and yet let slip through some of the ambiance of the event.


    Thought of you when I read (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:56:29 AM EST
    Charlie Pierce this morning (this is from Friday's post):

    I believe I warned the congregation that I was likely to be more than usually obnoxious for the duration of the major-league baseball playoffs this year. Well, we're two games into what I believe is going to be a terrific World Series and I'd like to say that the Fox No. 1 broadcast crew already has sucked a small lagoon's worth of pond water. It's not so much Tim McCarver; I've always been agnostic on him, never understood the wild enthusiasm or the extreme criticism. I do admit having been amazed the other night, though, when he seemed to vapor-lock on the name of Jose Santiago, a journeyman Red Sox pitcher who, in the first game of the 1967 Series, hit the most improbable home run in World Series history, in Fenway, off the great Bob Gibson with McCarver himself behind the plate. C'mon, Tim. That's the fluke of all flukes, dude.

    But there is simply no reason for Joe Buck to be on my electric teevee. He's a St. Louis homer, but that's not my biggest problem.  is the thickest slice of white bread in the history of sports broadcasting; the man makes Jim Nantz sound like the late Petey Greene. We had our first real outburst of Buckian dumbassery right off the top in Game One when he talked about how the Cardinals had an advantage in starting pitching because of the "unknowns" in the Boston rotation. Right. Jon Lester has pitched a no-hitter and won a game in the 2007 World Series. Clay Buchholz has pitched a no-hitter. John Lackey has won seven games in the postseason, including one in the 2002 World Series. Jake Peavy pitched in the postseason twice for the San Diego Padres. This is going to make me crazy. Also, too, I would appreciate it of both teams would agree to not throw the ball all over the yard for the rest of the Series.

    In general, I think good commentary - even good play-by-play - is hard to come by, at least in the two sports I tend to watch, which are baseball and football.  Honestly, some of the chatter/blather I hear during football games makes me wish there was a way to mute just the announcers, that's how little they contribute.


    Many (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 01:17:44 PM EST
    moons ago, I had the pleasure of being able to listen to a Yankees game being called by Phil Rizzuto.

    Obviously, he was a Yankees partisan.

    But every single game, he was as excited as if he were going to be on the field himself.

    No exaggeration: Every pitch had meaning for him. "The pitch!" he'd say as the pitcher let the ball fly toward home plate. You could visualize everything just from his emotion and enthusiasm. And his love of the game let him be equally enthusiastic over a great play by the opposing team. Not the same joy exactly. But awe and admiration were there for a great play no matter who was doing it.

    He was also a human being.
    And though he was a professional announcer for decades, he was first and foremost a person.

    Most of these guys announcing these days are "announcers". They have a "sound". They could be selling vacuum cleaners and it would sound the same. Actually, maybe they would have more energy selling vacuums.

    To get philosophical, sometimes I think that the function of these announcers is to dampen any sense of electricity that we might feel. They don't want people feeling too much. It might lead to some kind of awakening. We can't have that.


    You Huckleberry! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    "Uh-oh, deep to left-center, nobody's gonna get that one! Holy cow, somebody got it!"

    lol... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 01:51:21 PM EST
    You left out that the shortstop made the catch in shallow left-center...that's a classic Scooter call! ;)

    Great story lentinel... (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 05:57:43 PM EST
    For the last 30 years I dated Cindy Rizzuto, one of Phil's three daughters.  She lived in Aspen for a spell and then moved down here until she passed away three years ago.  Phil and Cora Rizzuto came down for visits several times and they were wonderful people.  He was recognized  everywhere and he carried baseballs to sign for fans.  He had an endless series of baseball stories that you would have loved to hear.  I truly miss Cindy as she was a great mate, friend,  and fisherwoman.

    BTW lentinel... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 06:03:23 PM EST
    spell check turns your name into lentil every time but you probably know this by now.

    Thank (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:47:19 AM EST
    you for your story.

    I had heard Phil mention Cora many times.

    I believe he always referred to her as his "bride".

    It must have been wonderful to have known that family.

    Thanks again for sharing your story.


    Well it's not exactly news (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 02:08:21 PM EST
    that these announcers and commentators live in mortal fear of saying anything remotely controversial, daring, or intellectually challenging. Kick starting the audience's thinking processes isn't a good lead in to all those Cialis, titties-and-beer, and "six hundred pounds 'a torque" commercials..

    Not my boy Mex!... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    Keith Hernandez speaks without fear...with a couple non-apology corporate apologies annually to prove it!

    I know I'm biased and all but Gary Cohen, Ron Darling, & Keith Hernandez are the best booth in the business today, hands down.  They keep me tuned in even after the Mutts are out of the race by June, they're that good! ;)


    Ron Darling (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 05:09:11 PM EST
    Sometimes makes me wanna punch the television. (BF is a Mets fan, so we flip between Tigers broadcasts and Mets broadcasts). Besides being "Captain Obvious" (a title he shares with Dan Dierdorf, IMO), sometimes he just wants to show the world that he has a Yale education and throws stuff in there which isn't relevant to anything.

    His favorite phrase?  "When I was playing..." I know he's there for color and to add some anecdotes, but it doesn't have to be every other word out of your mouth!


    I don't know why everyone's (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:51:49 PM EST
    so down on Dierdorf. He's one of the few color guys who seems to consistently notice the guy who blew up the play as opposed to making the spectacular tackle; one of the few guys who points out who made the great blocks on given play..

    I like his blue collar, "what's happening in the trenches is as important as the glamorous Brady and Peyton" take on the game.


    Really? (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:15:28 AM EST
    I find Ron lends valuable insights, especially in regards to pitching.  And Keith does the same from a hitter's perspective.  And maybe it's because I'm a Mutts fan, I love their stories from the glory days.

    With ya on Dierdorf...he gets muted big time.


    It does seem a bit strange (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 11:47:37 AM EST
    That Joe Buck is allowed to call World Series games in which the St. Louis Cardinals are playing, considering not only was his father one of the great Cardinals (and great period) announcers, he himself was their play-by-play guy in the 90's.

    Joe Buck and Tim McCarver (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 12:11:12 PM EST
    have been doing the World Series for the last 14 years (16 years total). This is the 4th time they've teamed for a Series that included the Cardinals. It's a non-issue.

    I Like Joe Buck... (none / 0) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:05:16 PM EST
    ...and Troy Aikman doing football games.

    Former players are always going to comment and do games that involve their former team, it can't he helped.

    Where is it written a broadcaster can't be biased, either towards the position or the team, they all do it and to me it's entertaining and what distinguishes their styles.  

    Collinsworth is whine about pass interference or holding on the receivers, Dierdorf is tell you how the games will be decided by the action in the trenches, Aikman is going to explain how nothing is the QB fault, and Chuckie is going to explain why no one on the field is working hard enough and/or doing their job and why refs(from last night) are killing the game with their BS calls.

    Granted Buck is not a former player, but really do we need to seriously vet announcers to make sure they aren't biased in any way ?  They can in no way effect the end result.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    Years ago a local broadcaster would team with the network announcer for World Series games giving a local flavor in each city. For example, in the 1976 World Series between the Reds and the Yankees, Reds announcer Marty Brennaman worked with Joe Garagiola the 1st two games in Cincinnati while Phil Rizzuto was with Garagiola when they played in Yankee Stadium.

    I agree with (none / 0) (#76)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 05:59:54 PM EST
    Charlie Pierce about Tim McCarver.  I don't care that McCarver was a former Cardinals catcher (and a good one).  I respect him for that.  But he's a boring broadcaster.  Snoozefest.
    And Joe Buck?  I'm sorry, but he is simply not even half the broadcaster that his father Jack was.  "Dumbassery" is Charlie's word, but I certainly agree with it.
    I grew up listening to a lot of commentary and play-by-play on the radio, and the current crop just does not measure up.  It drives me nuts.
    OTOH, maybe I'm just getting too old.  "You kids, get off my lawn!"     ;-)

    They're all boring (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:04:25 AM EST
    I'd love to hear McCarver talk about how many guys Gibson hit intentionally, how much weed Orlando Cepeda used to smoke, batters who intentionally fart in the catcher's face, avaricious, megalomaniacal union-busting owners and shoes and ships and ceiling wax and cabbages and kings, but I don't see it happenin'..

    You can always turn off the sound and put on Kind of Blue or the Rite of Spring..


    With the slowing down of the game (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 08:05:39 PM EST
    in general, added commercials, and too much talk...I can barely watch anymore. The announcers did not have as much time to fill when the pitchers weren't taking so long between pitches. It was not meant to be a 3 hour game.

    PS., to echo Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    You kids get off my lawn!

    Every day in every way (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 01:26:03 PM EST
    October 28/13
    Obamacare Prompts Insurers to Drop Hundreds of Thousands From Coverage
    The Obama administration's oft-repeated pledge that "if you like your plan, you can keep it," is being exposed as a fraud for hundreds of thousands of the estimated 14 million Americans who purchase their own insurance because they don't receive it through their job. These people are finding out that new coverage through their present insurer will be much more expensive, and that in most cases insurance offered through the insurance exchanges set up under Obamacare will either have more costly premiums or will include large out-of-pocket costs, while limiting choices. Many of these people will not be eligible for subsidies through Obamacare.

    Insurance companies began sending out cancellation notices in August.Kaiser Health News reports that insurer Florida Blue is terminating about 300,000 individual policies in the state, about 80 percent of the total. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent termination notices to some 160,000 people, about half of its individual market business.

    Blue Shield of California has sent out about 119,000 cancellation notices. Blue Shield spokesman Steve Shivinsky reports that about two thirds of these policyholders will see rate increases in their new policies.

    In Pennsylvania, insurer Highmark is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers in Pittsburgh, while Independence Blue Cross, the major Philadelphia insurer, is dropping about 45 percent. According toKaiser Health News, both Independence and Highmark are canceling "guaranteed issue" policies sold to customers who had preexisting medical conditions when they signed up for coverage. While the ACA is supposed to guarantee that people with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage or be charged more for it, it appears that some insurers are doing precisely that.

    Christ it would be awful if it was Romneycare doing this to people, eh?

    To give credit where due though... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    More people now have more hope for more real - I mean spare - change they can believe in than ever before!

    Go. Bama.


    Jay Carney forced to (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 03:45:17 PM EST
    admit you can't always keep your insurance.

    But don't give him too much credit.  Obama's lies don't matter according to Jay because the insurance these people had wasn't good enough according to the FEDS so they're lucky that they're being forced to buy (eventually) new insurance.

    So to sum up.  Obama said you could keep your insurance (but what he meant to say is only if he thought you needed it, a decision decided by congressman).

    Got it.


    Oregon teachers can now pack heat. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 02:58:49 PM EST
    Well, what could possibly (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 06:05:35 PM EST
    go wrong with this???   </snark>

    Oh, we've got them beat by a mile (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    Here, in Tennessee, in a relatively small town outside of Nashville, the teachers are not only "permitted" to carry heat, The Board just passed an ordinance requiring them to carry. When the teachers, almost unanimously, refused, The Board said, "o.k. you don't have to carry on your person, you can just keep it in your desks." When the teachers refused again, saying, "we don't want loaded guns in our classrooms," The Board said," o.k. then, you can keep the guns in your cars." The teachers refused again, saying, "we don't want loaded guns on school property, period."

    So, here's The Board's last proposal, "we will pay for your gun courses, and, we'll pay for your off-campus parking places, but, one way or another, we're going to cram guns down your throats, whether it makes sense or not, and, whether you like it or not."

    p.s.(I made up the "cramming" part, but, that's the sense I got from following this story.)

    I just wonder what the N.R.A.'s role in this crap is?


    I wonder if Obama likes having Dick Cheney (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 03:09:49 PM EST
    defending the NSA spying on...well, everyone under the sun.

    Cheney thinks Snowden is a traitor and should "face justice."

    These words come from the surly mouth of Cheney, who  is a traitor and a war criminal, and should face justice.

    May his artificial heart break down permanently, and very, very soon. The country will benefit.

    Only in America, I guess: (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    BILL MOYERS: Do you find it remarkable, Jamie Dimon asking for a personal meeting with the Attorney General Eric Holder to decide in private on a penalty? Michael Hirsh in the National Journal calls it a personal summit meeting. And he goes on to say that these negotiations "would only have been possible if the government of the United States is itself afraid of disturbing the operations of the bank," that as you have said, the attorney general himself thinks JPMorgan is indeed too big to fail.

    GRETCHEN MORGENSON: It seems unusual to me. And it does smack of favoritism, special treatment. It certainly was unusual I would say for Eric Holder, the attorney general of the United States of America to have a personal meeting with someone that his office is negotiating a settlement with. That raised eyebrows with me. I know I wouldn't be able to get that meeting if I asked--


    GRETCHEN MORGENSON: And if I implored: no. So I mean, I think it really sends a signal also which is disturbing that, you know, again two sets of rules in America, there's one set for the people who are in positions of power, certainly in the financial world one set of rules perhaps for them, one set for the rest of us.

    You know, I really don't understand why Eric Holder could, you know, would not have decided that it was the optics just didn't look that good for him to meet with Jamie Dimon. But maybe there's something behind it that I don't know.

    Why JP Morgan May be Getting Off Easy

    Nothing to see here - move along.

    I guess Obama was right..... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by vml68 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    Dimon "is one of the smartest banker's we've got". He knows the clout he has got and he is not afraid to use it!

    NSA gives up (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 06:48:07 PM EST
    spying on you looking for terrorists, does a 180 and instead looks for - you guessed it, Patriots! - with all new "Internal Patriot Discovery" technology.

    Bend over and spread 'em. This won't hurt a bit!

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 171 (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:18:36 AM EST
    Promises, promises... (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 09:58:15 AM EST

    Before the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, President Barack Obama promised Americans they could keep their health care plans if they liked them. But already hundreds of thousands of citizens are receiving notification that their plans are being canceled because they don't comply with the new law, and, according to NBC News, the Obama administration has known for at least three years the cancellations were coming.

    While campaigning for health care reform in 2009, Obama went out of his way to make one thing perfectly clear: If you like your current health care plan, you will be able to keep it.

    On June 15, 2009, Obama said this: "We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period."

    In 2012, he echoed that sentiment, saying, ""If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance."

    However, many are finding that not to be the case. More than 300,000 cancellation notices have been sent out in Florida, according to Kaiser Health News, and another 180,000 in California. In New Jersey, the number of cancellations tops 800,000, the Star-Ledger reports.

    According to NBC News, approximately 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million Americans who buy their health insurance individually should expect to receive a cancellation letter over the next year "because their existing policies don't meet the standards mandated by the new health care law."

    Yahoo! @@

    Strange (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:00:47 AM EST
    Folks around here were saying the same thing a couple of years ago....

    But, there are still a few pom-pon wavers around here who will still put their head in the sand and say "We don't know yet how awesome this will be!"  and "Give him time - he's only been in office for 5 years!"


    Yes, but (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    Just think how horrible it would be if a republican did this...

    ^ ^


    It's a damn shame (4.00 / 3) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:39:45 AM EST
    The insurance companies can no longer sell their Pinto Policies.

    O! Ba! Ma! (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    Jeebus, you're being pretty flip and casual about other people's problems.

    Pouring money into a junk (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 08:01:52 AM EST
    Insurance policy only to become ill and find you have paid for nothing that will help you live at all is to have even bigger problems.  I am all for junk insurance biting the dust forever, the scumbag bottom feeder product that it is, because I really do care about other people's problems.  I have had my insurance try to screw me and my family during times of life and death crisis.  Sort makes you care about such things if you have one authentic feeling in your body.

    MT, this has been going on for years. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 08:36:27 AM EST
    Once after an operation back in the 90's I received a notice that I could renew my exact same policy for less, so I did and lost all my accrued deductible thereby losing the necessary physical rehab.  It was a good company that had paid for everything and when I complained they said the state had oked their move.  The notice came while I was still dinged out in the hospital.  They knew exactly what they were doing.

    Big assumption (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 11:30:53 AM EST
    that all plans being canceled are "junk insurance".

    Not true, of course, but that doesn't stop cheerleaders from repeating it.


    The plans that are being canceled are (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 11:44:28 AM EST
    those that were not in existence as of the grandfather date of March, 2010, that are not ACA-compliant.  While many of these may be "junk" policies, many of them are not.  I have an individual policy that isn't junk - I've had it for at least 10 years; I don't have to give up my plan, but CareFirst doesn't have to make it ACA-compliant, either.  If I want a plan that complies, I have to re-apply for new coverage.

    My son-in-law's policy was not "junk," either, but he didn't get it until this spring, so he doesn't get to choose whether to keep it or not.


    Please exlain (none / 0) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 11:55:06 AM EST
    "....but CareFirst doesn't have to make it ACA-compliant, either."

    What determines whether an insurance policy has to be ACA compliant?



    They can be grandfathered in as they (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    Orinally existed, but if they make any changes to coverage or deductibles or caps, at that point the entire policy must meet ACA standards and become ACA compliant.

    Ha ha! Lots of assumptions made around here (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure when it comes to ACA I am one of the least assumptive around here though :)

    Nope (3.50 / 2) (#147)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    On this topic, you often tend to spew nonsense - all in the name of praising St. Barack.

    Actually I have no insurance (none / 0) (#100)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:06:23 PM EST
    and prefer to have none. I like to invest in the percentages which is pocketing insurance companies profits and overhead for myself.

    While I may purchase through the marketplace, I also have the ability to get a waiver and avoid a fine.


    That being the case (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    Actually I have no insurance (none / 0) (#100)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:06:23 AM MDT

    and prefer to have none.

    It takes a particular kind of callousness and lack of respect to remark on or make judgements about the issues that other people are facing in their lives.

    Well, at least now we know why we can ignore anything further you have to say on this topic.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    callous is when you only care about yourself and not the masses. Not sure why you would say I don't face the problem. If I get sick I pay out of my pocket. You complain about insurance companies and then complain when they can't continue to rip you off.

    You need to decide which you prefer...insurance companies with no limit on profits and offering crap policies, or restrictions on their profits and actually provide a useful service.

    As for where you stand, you made clear what side you stand on when you said you like your news with the same bias you possess. No different than a fox viewer.


    Your choices are your choices (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:41:03 PM EST
    In the meantime you have been dismissive and cavalier about the options available to others. That reads and sounds like callousness even by your definition. As for this bit of nonsense:
    You need to decide which you prefer...insurance companies with no limit on profits and offering crap policies, or restrictions on their profits and actually provide a useful service.
    What I prefer is of little moment in this discussion. what I prefer is single payer. That ship has sailed for the nonce. But I'm not going to flit through the comments like a little goblin mocking those who are facing serious issues with what presently actually exists.


    As for where you stand, you made clear what side you stand on when you said you like your news with the same bias you possess. No different than a fox viewer.
    While that seems a serious distortion of my perspective, I can't even think where I said something that would cause even the worst reader in the world to come up with that sort of comment in the attempt to insult. Considering that I get no news at all via A/V.

    There are a multitude of choices available (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:04:25 PM EST
    Choose what you want.

    If you wanted single payer you should have been accepting of the current direction twenty years ago. Come back in another twenty and you'll have a shot.

    The government site lists a quick look at pricing plans now. In my county at my age I have an option of 137 different plans from bronze thru platinum.

    I'm sure by March 31 I'll go ahead and get one. It's for the greater good.


    More WTF?? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    If you wanted single payer you should have been accepting of the current direction twenty years ago.
    Now you're not only telling me (based on erroneous information) how wrong my current thinking is, but you're also criticizing my thinking of 20 years ago?

    Moreover, you've contradicted yourself several times here. Are you sure you should still be making your own medical decisions? I ask that only with love, of course.


    Give her some credit, sj (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    She did manage to divert the thread away from obama's promises. ;-)

    typo (none / 0) (#121)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    "promises" should read "lies"

    If you get an illness that costs (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    hundreds of thousands dollars or millions of dollars to treat per year, do you have the available funds to pay these expenses out of pocket? If not and you get treatment, others not you will pick up your tab.

    Nope (none / 0) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    I'm also a fan of euthanasia. I don't want anyone paying for me and you won't hear me whine about it.

    Choosing suicide over (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:07:45 PM EST
    participating in an insurance program that you champion for others. IOW it is a fantastic program for other people but not you. Telling.

    You obviously missed my last comment (none / 0) (#116)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    I'm sure by March 31 I'll go ahead and get one. It's for the greater good.

    Oh I see (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:52:23 PM EST
    Even though you don't like paying for insurance companies profits and overhead, you might get some type of insurance through the exchange for altruistic purposes. Your comments of I rather not but maybe I will are not exactly high praise for the products or programs.

    Mo I'd always prefer not (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:45:47 PM EST
    I also stopped homeowners insurance as soon as I was able to, never had mortgage insurance, carry minimal car insurance (because it's the law) and have saved a tidy sum.

    As for the new law, I still have a multitude of choices. I could buy from any insurance company, choose one of the 137 options available to me through the ACA marketplace, or I could avoid health insurance completely (I can get a waiver in Florida), and continue to use the premiums to pay off my daughter's college loans. Options abound.

    Of course any of us could follow a certain president's advice and if we don't like it, quit complaining and get off our a$$ and win an election.


    Well if you prefer not to pay insurance (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    companies then I find it rather strange to say the least that you continually chide others who do not appreciate an overpriced insurance based system that does not meet their needs.

    Also I could get off my a$$ and work for Obama and the Dems or I could get off my a$$ and work for the Republicans and either way I would still get corporate centric Republican policies. Quietly accepting policies that at best barely reach the high bar of better than nothing does not appeal to me. I feel it is my duty as a citizen to speak loudly and often about the policies and actions of my government that I find unacceptable until such time as we get better representation.

    Maybe rather than lecturing the citizens of this country the President could better spend his time telling the truth about his programs and making sure that his "better than nothing" policies actually work. Also, maybe he could also decide whether he wants to be the President who approved NSA spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other world leaders or the President who is so out of touch with what is going that he neither knew or approved NSA's actions.


    I can understand why Obama would want to (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    silence all those who disagree with his policies. Yet that is not IMO the role of citizens in a democracy. Howard Zenn said it very well in this statement about citizen activist:

    When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.

    We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.  Howard Zinn

    While his statement was about the war it IMO applies to all interaction with our government's policies. Then there is this statement that I also think is highly relevant.

    The one who is silent when he could and should have spoken, seems to consent.

    CG, I don't think anyone's quibbling (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    with the fact that we all have choices - even if, for many people, what they have to choose from isn't much better than a sharp stick in the eye.  And for some people, it isn't a matter of being in a position to choose not to have health insurance, it's a matter of not being able to pay for it if they want to also have a roof over their head and food on the table.

    Which, when you think about it, is a pretty sad commentary on life in these United States.

    But MOBlue did pose a good question, which you kind of side-stepped with the euthanasia comment: who pays for you if you don't have the funds to pay for yourself?  I get that you're betting your chances of not needing catastrophic care are pretty good, sometimes people are not in a position to decide whether or if they will be treated - unless you have standing instructions that if you experience a major medical event, you wish to forgo treatment.

    And maybe you do.  Or maybe you figure that at the point at which you run out of money, you can decide to end treatment.

    We've had so many chances to take all this exceptional medical and technological knowledge that exists here and apply it to a system that deems everyone worthy of care, and instead, we've made getting the best care a bastion of the wealthy - because even with "good" insurance, one can quickly be in a big financial hole it will be difficult to climb out of.

    What is there to do about it?  The best we can, I guess, since the electoral route hasn't proven to be the answer.  No good choices there, that's for sure, just a case of who is the least bad.


    Not all extremely expensive treatment is (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 04:26:06 PM EST
    end of life treatment.

    I have a friend who was treated for cancer 20 some odd years ago and it has not come back. Under CG's "solution" she could have 1st. chosen not to have any insurance and then chosen euthanasia since her treatment was very expensive and she did not have access to funds to pay for it. Of course under this plan, her life would have been cut short. She would have lost 20, 30, 40 years of life and her family would have been deprived of someone they love unnecessarily.

    I was treated for cancer 5 years ago. The treatment cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and the quality of life for one year was less than optimal. Yet here I am 5 years later (hopefully cancer free) still alive and kicking and enjoying my life with my family and friends. Had I chosen to save the money that I paid out in premiums, someone other than me would have paid for my gamble since my savings would have been exhausted in the first several months of treatment.



    Standing agreement with my daughter (also written) (none / 0) (#129)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 04:06:41 PM EST
    I'm a big fan of quality over quantity when it comes to life.

    Or in the immortal words of my very healthy great great aunt at age 99 when a doctor told her she had to eat replied..."No I don't".


    Not gonna do much good (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 04:43:32 PM EST
    If you get hit by a bus and have not life threatening injuries, but serious injuries that require months of treatment and many surgeries.

    Unless your daughter is gonna pull the plug because you need physical therapy.


    I suppose (none / 0) (#110)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    that's one solution...

    sj, we have several commenters here (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    who have proclaimed themselves to be the Judgmental Magistrates of Talk Left. With little of value to offer, or, even an opinion worth considering, they are simply useless appendages (like our appendix) that we will just have to learn to tolerate.

    The best approach to take, I believe, is to take pity upon them, and, hope that someday they will mature enough to learn how to use the scroll bar.


    I must say (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:14:44 PM EST
    that learning to use the scroll bar would definitely benefit me and my (traditionally low) blood pressure. But no, I am compelled to read what is before me.

    A side bar about that the reading compulsion: I read magazines from front to back, skipping nothing, and always need to read the older issues first. I once a subscription to Time magazine. Can you imagine? I had to cancel because the pressure got to be too much.


    Someoneelse who suffers from the same disease (none / 0) (#119)
    by vml68 on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    I do!
    There are times when I am reading something that I have absolutely no interest in or don't even understand and I wonder what the h*ll is wrong with me. I can't stop though. I still have to finish the article/post/comment! I think it is some kind of OCD.

    I agree (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    I, too, think it's some form of OCD. And I have found myself in that very situation that you describe. But I finally found a way to not compulsively read books that are doing nothing for me:

    I now try to always have 3 - 5 books that I'm reading at the same time. My compulsion is satisfied by knowing that I could go back to that book [that doesn't appeal to me] at any time. Even if choose not to right now.

    Still, there are only a couple of books hanging around that I haven't finished yet.


    Speaking for me... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 01:13:18 PM EST
    ...without a public option, this will all end up a disaster for some people, a boon for others, and a blah for most. Because, come on, health INSURANCE exists for one reason...to profit off your bodily and/or mental health. Sans a public option, I just cannot logically find a reason to be optimistic. Every law in this nation is beholden to big money. I can't see how this will be any different if Americans aren't given REAL freedom of choice. And real freedom ONLY exists with a non-profit public option. Short of that, I'm sorry, this system will keep creaking along, giving decent care to the few. crappy care to the many. Cuz it ain't healthCARE reform, it's health INSURANCE reform, and it hands to insurers, in effect, every single sucker in this country. That said, to repeat, I cannot deny that some people will be helped. That help, however, would exist in a public system, too. But, for them, right now, I can understand their support for the ACA. It's just in the long run, logic cannot support this program as sustainable, unless you are going to change the ENTIRE capitalistic paradigm of our health"care" system. IMO, of course. Peace out.

    Yes and good health care plans (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    are also being eliminated to avoid paying the excise tax. Say goodbye to the $500 deductible insurance plan and the $20 co pay. Also, if Obama has his way we can say goodbye to Medigap coverage that pays the first dollar for health care for seniors. Those seniors who have ongoing medical problems that require regular treatment can just automatically reduce their spendable income by several thousand dollars each and every year.  

    No problem (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    After his proposed Social Security cuts they won't need Medical care. They'll have starved, and there'll be less seniors living in abject poverty.
    "Once the change is fully phased in, Social Security benefits for a typical middle-income 65-year-old would be about $136 less a year, according to an analysis of Social Security data. At age 75, annual benefits under the new index would be $560 less. At 85, the cut would be $984 a year."

    Well, CG (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    Your comment might hold true IF that the only policies being cancelled are "Pinto Policies".

    Newsflash:  My policy, which is being cancelled, is NOT a Pinto policy - it's pretty decent.  Yes, it has a high deductible, but it's a PPO with a large network of providers, small co-pays for office visits, prescription coverage, vision, and a cheap, dental plan administered through an outside vendor through my plan. Is it the best plan?  No, but it serves me well, even as some months it's a bit tough to pay the premiums.  And now I get offered a plan that's a bit less in coverage for a bit more in money. I could get an EQUAL plan, but it would be about $100 more a month.

    To be fair, even though it isn't permanent, I COULD keep my plan for one more year (the "grandfathering" Jay Carney et al keep yammering about), but what they conviently leave out is the fact that those grandfathered still would have to get a new ACA compliant plan next year.

    So, maybe next time before you want to get snarky, you might not want to take the administration's word as gospel and actually KNOW what the heck you are talking about.


    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance.  LINK

    President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

    Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a "cancellation" letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don't meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience "sticker shock."

    The NBC article is pretty damning.


    Damn (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 04:55:36 PM EST
    and I thought I coined Pinto Plan myself. I apologize if someone nailed that term down before me.

    But it is tough to follow the arguments. You're complaining that deductibles are dropping while others are complaining they are rising.


    I don't care about deductibles (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 05:05:13 PM EST
    I'm talking about the lowering of options / service vs. higher premiums.

    I'll spell it out for you so you can understand.

    Paying more for less.

    Got it?


    There are a whole lot of people (none / 0) (#135)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 05:23:45 PM EST
    getting more service for less and a whole lot of people getting more service for nothing. But I do understand why you are most interested in your own pocket. I'll be paying more too as will everyone else who, like me, chose in the past to have no coverage.

    My husband and I have had the same insurance/ (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by vml68 on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    plan for years. It was/is a very good plan and they did not have to make any changes to it. It already covered everything the ACA mandated. Yet, my premiums which went up a couple hundred every year for the past few years, went up $1000 for this year and $2000 for next year.
    So, even those of us who had coverage in the past will be paying more.

    I'll be paying more too as will everyone else who, like me, chose in the past to have no coverage.

    Please don't (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    say that.  CG and MT really don't want to believe it.  

    Odd (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:13:55 PM EST
    I'm not having any trouble "following the arguments". Pity you don't have health insurance. You could get your brain function checked.

    sj, don't be too hard on him (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:25:24 PM EST
    The person in charge really couldn't answer anything either.  CG should join administration as a spokesperson.

    The administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services learned one valuable lesson from the contractors' hearing last week: She apologized right away for the technological missteps that are preventing millions of Americans from using the federal enrollment website. That drew a vivid contrast with the contractors, who never showed any remorse.

    But after that mea culpa, it was all downhill for Tavenner.She didn't have any answers for Republicans who wanted to know how many people have successfully enrolled in the Obamacare health insurance exchanges, including the federal one. "We'll have those numbers available in mid-November," she said over and over again as Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp pressed her for hard information.

    "How do you not know how many people are enrolled?" Camp asked.

    "Chairman Camp, we'll have those numbers available in mid-November," Tavenner answered.

    She also couldn't say how many young adults were in the mix or how the website can effectively warn adults under age 26 that they won't get a subsidy because they can stay on their parents' plans.

    And she didn't have a direct answer when Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) asked whether she could guarantee that no one would have a gap in their health insurance, if their old individual policies are being cancelled and they can't sign up for a new one by Jan. 1.

    "What I can guarantee is that we have a system that works," Tavenner said. "It's working. It's just not working at the speed that we want."

    Cancelled policies are the new broken website

    By far, the biggest focus of the hearing was the cancellation letters people with individual health insurance are getting from their insurers --as customers are told that their old individual insurance doesn't meet Obamacare coverage standards, so they have to buy new insurance that can be far more expensive.

    This, if true, is a very telling paragraph:

    Tavenner, however, said the Obama administration was always trying to protect the majority of Americans who get their health coverage through the workplace -- implying, but never quite saying, that people who buy their own health coverage couldn't count on that same protection

    Which was the whole point of this discussion.


    Not all people who get insurance (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    coverage through their employer can keep the insurance that they have either. Union workers, who often traded away salary for better health care coverage, will not be able to keep their good coverage due to the excise tax that was one of changes to the system that received strong support from Obama.

    Yep, anyone who knew even (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:47:48 AM EST
    the slightest bit about insurance and the what was being legislated knew several years ago that what Obama was saying was not true.

    The law was written to change the policies not just in the individual market but also in the health insurance policies that union members had that would change due to the inclusion of the excise tax on good policies.


    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:43:14 AM EST
    if there have been any Kaiser cancellations in Colorado...

    Brazilian surfer likely rides biggest wave ever (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    Saw that (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    this morning on one of the morning TV "news" magazines. Incredible, right? Also crazy. I know it's hard to get perspective but look how close that wave looks to the buildings. More here.

    Amazing optical illusion, I agree (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:10:08 PM EST
    The perspective is stunning. But that building, I believe, is safely high up on a cliff overlooking the beach.

    TechDirty (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    Major New Anti-NSA Bill Dropping Next Week With Powerful Support | Techdirt
    We already knew that Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner was getting ready to release a major new anti-NSA spying bill called the USA Freedom Act, and Derek Khanna has just revealed many of the details of the bill, scheduled to be introduced in both houses of Congress this coming Tuesday.  It will be backed by Sensenbrenner in the House and Pat Leahy in the Senate, and will have plenty of co-sponsors (already about 50 have signed up) including some who had initially voted against the Amash Amendment back in July.  In other words, this bill has a very high likelihood of actually passing, though I imagine that the intelligence community, and potentially the White House, will push back on it.
    Of course, there are powerful people who are Anti-Anti-NSA. As the article notes: "For Congress, gathering up a veto-proof majority may be a more difficult task."

    Saw a meme image on facebook today (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 07:04:33 PM EST
    that said...
    Warning: There are over 700 fake obamacare sites ready to swipe your info.

    Pro Tip: The real site is the one that doesn't work.

    Eeesh. Maybe more truth than not in that.

    Heavy drinking may help?

    Too funny (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 09:13:27 PM EST
    Especially given that the site has been down all afternoon.

    Once the site is truly working, I suspect that's when the stuff is really going to hit the fan.  Or maybe it will take a year, before people realize they're paying premiums for quasi-Medicaid.  Our good Democrats are doing the best to hide it and it's working for now.  I just hope it doesn't mean financial ruin for anyone when they go, say, to their ER and realize that their care docs are out of network (meaning UNLIMITED OUT of POCKET costs).  The bottom line is there's more than one way to turn insurance into junk and screw people out of their hard-earned money.

    From an insurance broker, via Huffington Post:

    Protect Californians' Choice of Doctors: A Public Appeal to the California Insurance Commissioner and the Executive Director of Covered California

    Dear Mr. Jones and Mr. Lee,

    I am writing to request your immediate attention and intervention to assure the promise of the Affordable Care Act does not become a nightmare of deeply angry and horrified Californians cut off from the doctors who have cared for them for many years.

    Many Californians are about to find themselves locked out of the anticipated benefits of health reform's new individual guaranteed acceptance health plans. Insurers are developing new restrictive provider networks--the list of doctors and medical facilities where policyholders can receive medical care. New buyers, which will include all individual buyers who purchased coverage after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010, will find that their policies drastically restrict their choice of doctors.

    The full extent of the network limitations is not yet public. [Edit: Because our compassionate Democratic politicians are doing their best to hide it.] Your organizations are likely to be the only agencies with complete information. I am listing here the network limitations that have come to my attention. While these concern Blue Shield, I am certain that other carriers are engaging in similar practices. All carriers need to be investigated.

    Blue Shield will offer only limited network Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) and Exclusive Provider Organization(EPO)plans to all new individual buyers. All new customers who have been anticipating purchasing guaranteed issue individual insurance for themselves and their families, will have access to a network that **excludes 65%** of current Blue Shield doctors and all the University of California Medical Centers.

    ....read more at the link above....

    (And for anyone who doesn't know, this isn't a California problem.  It's nationwide with these plans.  But of course, the choice is to buy one of these junk plans to get subsidies or forego subsidies to buy a plan outside of the Exchange.  Many people won't have a choice, given that they're forced to buy insurance.)

    It's not guaranteed issue when you don't have good doctor access.  I'm so glad I'm forgoing subsidies and sitting out the so-called "Affordable Care Act".  I just wish people on the left would stop cheerleading this policy and wake up.  Your congress pulled a bait and switch -- AGAIN.


    Who's watching? (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:56:59 PM EST
    Has anyone using FireFox checked this out?

    I Just Added It... (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:03:04 AM EST
    ...from what I can tell it won't activate until I visit a site that monitors.

    Lions! (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 07:18:08 AM EST
    Calvin Johnson!

    And Dez Bryant needs to stop taking temper tantrums.

    Dez Bryant is not mentally healthy (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    What I saw on the sidelines yesterday was a bi-polar young man who needs significant mental health treatment. IMO, of course.

    Heat of the moment (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    Lets not diagnose mental illness from a football sideline.

    sorry, kid's got mental health issues (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    that's my opinion, and not just from this incident.

    The entity that perviously lived inside (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    of T.O and Ochocinco seems to have found a new host.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 11:27:40 AM EST
    And those two, sigh, the perfect combinations of manic depression and athletic prowess. IMO again, IMO.

    The body and nervous system isn't (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    meant to take that kind of beating..

    We probably only hear about a small fraction of the guys that end up having problems: the ones that do it too publicly, and or, wind up with legal problems..


    Benghazi - 60 minutes (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    60 Minutes

    Pretty obvious the administration lied about the events that night.

    Saw it (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:53:26 AM EST
    And I'm still amazed how stupid a nation we are. Do these halfwits not understand that when you sanction and support mass-murder that all bets are off, that there ain't nothin' you can do but hope your ass doesn't get sliced and diced? That there ain't no heroic cavalry coming to get you? Every once in awhile there may be, but it's war, for shit's sake, and if you are over there under the banner of a foreign military power, guess what? Your job is to die with a smile on your face, that's the entire military paradigm, when you strip away all the rah rah bullsh*t.

    WTF is wrong with people? Seriously. When you decide to blithely go about military interventions, time and time again, whatever the party affiliation of the supposed leader initiating them, and then you want predictable outcomes and a 911 number to call for immediate rescue?

    That's so laughable it is sickening.

    Obama is a moron, I think it's well known I believe so. But this issue just amazes. Those people were dead from the time the attackers wanted them dead decided to act. That's what happens in war in someone else's country. We're so phucking stupid and deluded and collectively mentally retarded it boggles the atrophied mind.

    IMO, of course, IMO. Lol.


    I agree with you (none / 0) (#61)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 01:21:49 PM EST
    What the hell were we doing there?

    We toppled a government because it was the "right thing to do" and then we decided it was over because we said so.

    Someone forgot to tell the bad guys that an election was on over here and we didn't have time to either fix what we broke or pay attention.

    I just find it laughable that the administrations was able to lie about what happened long enough to get a pass on their miserable failure.    Small in the grand scheme of middle Eastern lies and failures over the past few years but a lie none the less.


    I'm pretty sure Libya... (none / 0) (#79)
    by unitron on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 06:41:56 PM EST
    ...was in for "regime change" of some kind whether we got involved in any way or not, but with no intervention on our part there's no telling how many people, many if not most innocent bystanders, Gaddafi would have slaughtered fighting to hold onto power.

    Once the unrest there reached the tipping point it was a no-win situation for us even if we'd remained strictly "hands off, let the Libyan people sort it out for themselves", 'cause then everybody'd be "Why didn't America do something to prevent this horrible slaughter?"

    Besides, once Gaddafi was overthrown something and someone was going to fill up the power vacuum, and better to have some influence in keeping that from turning out any worse than absolutely necessary.

    Our choices were limited to trying to figure out which was the least of many evils.


    You keep making this silly claim (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    No specifics ... no facts ... no evidence.  The wingnuts have made so many ridiculous claims about Benghazi, you'll need to be more specific.

    He's not speaking to you (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    He's talking to fellow wingnuts for which specifics are an unnecessary complication. They're told, "Benghazi," is the rallying cry of the day, and, like good little, mindless acolytes, they run out and do as they're told........and, strut around, feeling proud in their ignorance as they do their bidding.

    I thought you knew that.


    Man defeats daughter in drag racing final (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 03:59:28 PM EST