home

Friday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< The Problem With ObamaCare: The Republican Stuff | Friday Evening 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. 174 (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    She doesn't need apples, she needs cash or checks. (link)

    And my two favorite Halloweeners:

    Volume 173
    Volume 170

    TGIF, peeps. Oh, and in sports news, a starting lineman from the Miami Dolphins left the team after having to endure bullying by teammates (LINK). No wonder the franchise has been sh*t for three decades now.

    And because Zorba blew soda through her nose... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:09:24 PM EST
    Passing (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:16:21 PM EST
    the top one on to my mother, the retired teacher.

    Parent
    Both my parents were teachers at some point (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:38:39 PM EST
    Actors before that. Mom became an adminstrator, Dad did nothing but get in trouble with administrators for sneaking in substitutes for afternoons so he could get to auditions in Hollywood or the Valley.

    Parent
    c'mon man we won (none / 0) (#11)
    by fishcamp on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:40:55 PM EST
    with a semi-safety.  don't see that often.  yes 171 will be hard to beat (pun both included and not included)  there's probably a word for that like bicameral.

    Parent
    I've seen more safeties this year than ever (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:54:18 PM EST
    Or it sure seems like it. Congrats on the win, I'm sure there's a few decent fish on that squad. ;-)

    Parent
    And you're right (none / 0) (#82)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:54:43 PM EST
    I have NEVER seen a safety win the game in OT.

    Parent
    Dolphins (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    If inviting someone over, then when they sit, everyone leaves the table, can be called bullying.  

    They have not mentioned any previous events, only referring to it as bullying.

    I read something not long ago about one of the commonalities to mass shooting was the person had been embarrassed publicly in the recent past.  It wasn't concluding anything, just mentioning that nearly all of them had that one common thing.  To some people, usually with mental issues, publicly embarrassment seems to be what triggers them.  They also seemed to be, and I can't remember the term, but the scapegoat, either at school, at work, or even in the family where a member of a group is perceived by others as being the black sheep when in most cases it's not deserved.  But human nature tends to chastise those who are different, which in the mass shooters cases, where generally those who we shy and quiet, and the people doing it are almost always unaware of it.

    But in the NFL, really, isn't all the jabber jawing on the field meant to intimidate, to bully.  I don't know, I am torn on this one, and unfortunately the NFL will ensure we never get the full scoop if it was bad.

    Parent

    They say his nickname was "Big Weirdo." (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:34:46 PM EST
    His parents are both lawyers from Harvard, I don't expect his background is at all familiar to many/most NFL players.

    Parent
    In professional sports... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:53:40 PM EST
    ...if you have a book in your hand that isn't a playbook you're considered the professor. My hunch is this kid was a sensitive soul in a big talented body, and these aceholes went too far for too long and the guy, who is obviously pretty bright, said phuck it. A real team, IMO, would've settled this with apologies and bro hugs in the locker room. Says something that they didn't.

    Parent
    More to this story (none / 0) (#84)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:22:29 PM EST
    This guy started every game this year so the 'fins did want to lose him.  There have been lots of athletes with a first rate mind.  Dollar Bill Bradley went to Princeton and played for the Nicks when they were good.  Just being smart will not result in a nickname like weirdo, you have to do something else.  

    The NFL players union is investigating Incognito as the source of the harassment.  Some football forums are hinting Martin was harassed because he was suspected of being gay.  Incognito left Nebraska as a soph and was kicked off the Oregon team before turning pro.  He had a troubled past with the Rams and the Bills before winding up at the 'fins.  The 'fins are defending Incognito as a model citizen.

    Not sure just what the story is but it seems like more drama than most sports teams have.

    Parent

    woops (none / 0) (#86)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:56:16 PM EST
    should be the 'fins did NOT want to lose him

    Parent
    Food stamp cuts hit 1 in 7 Americans today (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:12:41 PM EST
    Government Cheese "Food"... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    aka faux cheese, if you will...no room for real cheese in a food stamp budget...not even Kraft Singles...talking strictly no frills 99 cents for 12 slices of mystery orange stuff.

    Parent
    I called very single of of my state reps (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    about this yesterday (10 in all) to ask what their position will be when it's time for another vote. Of the six Dems, two of their staff members on the phone were actively hostile to my query. One even started getting sarcastic and asking whether I had called to school her in the details of the farm bill, "something which I actually know a lot about!" she informed me. The other continually refused to say what the congressman's current position is, only how he had voted on it last time around. And those are two of my state Dems offices. Appalling, to say the least.

    Of the four Republican offices, one was amenable to listening to me, but insistent that I give her my name and address for a cookie-cutter email reply (which I declined); one office only had a voice mail; one Republican staff member actually had the audacity to state that they are not allowed to talk about issues like that from the state office because "that's a policy issue, and we don't deal with policy here. You'll have to call D.C."

    The last was Republican Dave Reichert's office, and while the staff member readily stated that Reichert had voted to cut benefits the last time around, she was very nice, more than willing to engage in a respectful discussion, and, dare I say it...even compassionate-sounding when it came to the issue of people not being able to feed their kids, while agri-businesses continue to receive subsidies from taxpayers.

    Bottom line, all the reps offices are cranky at us for calling and being engaged in issues like this. They really DON'T want to heat from us..unless, of course, we are calling to shower the rep with accolades.

    By the way, the House isn't in session right now. They've taken another two weeks off.

    Parent

    How dare you? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    I always get a tad passionate on the phone with my reps' reps, then they tell me if I don't calm down they're going to hang up. And, mind you, I'm not yelling, nor cursing, simply making my case with a bit of passion. Literally, each time I call, I modulate it a little more, hoping for that magical call when I get it just right and all is well in Free America.

    Parent
    And, yes, I did live on welfare and food stamps... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    ...as a young kid with my mom in rough and tumble central L.A. in the late 60s, early 70s, I remember waiting in blocks long lines for our check. I remember my mom putting those stamps up on the checkstand at the grocery store, and the bit of hesitation every time, because everyone has a measure of pride and doesn't feel especially happy about advertising their needy position in society. I literally boil under my skin when this stuff comes up again and again. It is basic human decency and, sort of obviously, a public health issue of pretty serious import. But only for the rabble, so screw 'em. Uncle Sam is phucking Scrooge, without the final act turnaround right now, if ever.

    Parent
    Look (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:38:17 PM EST
    the vast majority of our elected representatves don't have the foggiest effing clue what it's like to be poor; they went to the same private schools and send their own kids to the same; they live in the same kinds of sequestered neighborhoods; they daily breathe the same seductive atmosphere exuded by lobbyists and the members of interlocking, incestuous corporate boards. In other words, these people don't psychologically live in the interdependent, systemic, real world, and the only way they'll ever be able to is if people living in that real world pull them down to earth and hold their Italian designer covered feet to the fire.

    Parent
    Please understand that those aides ... (3.50 / 2) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:55:49 PM EST
    Dadler: "I always get a tad passionate on the phone with my reps' reps, then they tell me if I don't calm down they're going to hang up."

    ... with whom you are talking at the congressional representatives' home offices in your respective districts are paid about $30,000 annually. If it's a state legislative office, their pay may even be less. I know that may surprise a lot of you who may have believed that congressional and legislative aides are generally rolling in the dough, but it's true.

    I'm not singling you out, Dadler. But having been on the receiving end of a not-insignificant number of these calls during my years in the business, and this being a family-friendly site, I can't begin to tell you some of the absolutely horrible things that have been said to me in that capacity. What I can tell you is that there are an awful lot of people who apparently believe that as taxpayers and voters, they somehow have license to verbally abuse the help. I even had my life threatened on a couple occasions!

    While all of you have every right to contact your elected officials to convey your opinions and inquire as to said elected official's position on a given matter -- and I strongly urge each of you to exercise that right -- please be respectful of the person who's on the other end of the phone and taking your call, and don't take out your frustrations on them by treating them like your personal piñata.

    Quite frankly, the majority of these people are not paid enough as it is, and certainly not enough to be cussed out and even threatened by angry constituents.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    How much an aide earns (3.50 / 2) (#73)
    by sj on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:02:34 PM EST
    is completely irrelevant to a constituent. That is between the aide and employer. What is relevant to the constituent is knowledge, courtesy and helpfulness. Just like any other voice on the other end of any customer service line (assuming one can reach a human voice on said CS line).

    There are lots of people who aren't paid enough. If we're going to completely change the subject to income, then I'd rather talk about teachers.

    Parent

    Two have been very helpful to (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    Me recently.  Had no idea how poorly paid they are.

    Parent
    That Sounds Like It.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    ...would make for a good cartoon.

    The compassionate and concerned citizen talking to a political aid who thought they were going to make a difference but has been forsaken to phone duty until they learn to despise the very people their boss represents.  Then and only then are they accepted as having the right stuff.

    Parent

    I can get rather--ahem--"passionate" too (none / 0) (#21)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:07:14 PM EST
    But I made sure I remained quite calm and measured throughout each call.

    I had to go on welfare and food stamps for a few months about twenty years ago. It's not something you ever forget, is it? In fact, I've kept an old two dollar packet of food stamps in a dresser drawer as a reminder of where I've been. Let's call it a strange kind of keepsake.

    Parent

    Ah, lack of "preview" skills (none / 0) (#7)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    Subject line should be "I called every single one of my state reps offices."

    And I called my two Dem senators as well. Got voice mail only.

    Parent

    Did you *67? (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    Because they might know you by Caller ID at this point shoephone, bless your heart...hence the voice mail.

    Parent
    Or the NSA can do the work for them (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    I have to figure anyone who can spy on me is already doing so. Phone, gmail, snail mail. One size fits all. They should be doing late night infomercials.

    Parent
    Getting someone (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    will be even  harder next year.

    Eric Cantor is cutting the number of work days for the House from 126 to 113 next year so they have time to campaign and fundraise.

    Parent

    Oh, come on, jb! (1.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 04:41:01 PM EST
    Are you actually implying that congressional staff only work 126 days per year?

    Those 126 days you're referencing, soon to be cut to 113, constitute the days in which the House is actually gaveled into session in the House chambers at the Capitol. The rest of the time, their offices are open five days a week, 52 weeks a year save for federal holidays.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Uh, no (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 04:47:51 PM EST
    I know reading is difficult for you sometimes, but if you get your Hooked on Phonics, and try really hard (maybe a grown-up will help you with the big words), you can read the attached, which says:

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is rewarding the least popular House in history by cutting their number of scheduled work days from 126 in 2013 to 113 in 2014.

    The 2014 House calendar reveals where the Republican majority's priorities really are. House Republicans are scheduled to be in session for only 12 days in each of the first three months of the year. The "busy month" for House Republicans will come during the usually slow July political season.

    This schedule is all about giving House Republicans the time to campaign in their districts and fundraise. They will be on vacation for the entire month of August, in session for 10 days in September, and will only be working for a laughable two days during the month before the 2014 election.

    I don't recall saying anything about their staffs, since the conversation was about the House being in session.

    But thanks for playing.


    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    everybody else is supposed to work except him I guess.

    Parent
    No - he sets the calendar (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:42:04 PM EST
    Everyone will be out.

    Parent
    We should be cutting their pay by 2/3 (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    If they're only going to work 1/3 of the year, they should only get paid for 1/3 of the year.

    Parent
    I agree completely (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    If I wasn't a peaceful man.. (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:16:30 PM EST
    I'd say lets just cut 'em...like Stepping Razors.

    Parent
    That's really not uncommon. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    shoephone: "[O]ne Republican staff member actually had the audacity to state that they are not allowed to talk about issues like that from the state office because 'that's a policy issue, and we don't deal with policy here. You'll have to call D.C.'"

    When I worked for the late Congresswoman Patsy Mink in the 1990s, the staff in our Honolulu office were directed to refer all constituent inquiries about current or pending legislation to the D.C. office. And if the media called, staff were directed to refer those calls immediately to Mrs. Mink's communications director in Washington.

    The reason for that was because the district office -- which was staffed by no more than seven people -- primarily concerned itself with district case work, i.e., constituents who were having a problem with a federal agency and needed the congresswoman's assistance or intercession.

    (And you'd be surprised how much case work they actually did. They received an average of 60 inquiries daily, from Social Security benefits to tax issues to requests for appointments to the military academies. Further, it was also their job to arrange U.S. Capitol tours for those constituents who were planning a trip to D.C., and we'd average about four of those daily, too. We actually had another office next door in the federal building in Honolulu that was filled with nothing but file cabinets, each one full of case work files.)

    When constituents called the Capitol office in Washington to express their opinion, staff in that office were directed to record the constituents' concerns and try to get some contact information, but to not engage in any prolonged political discussions with constituents.

    That's because save for Mrs. Mink's communications director, the staff were not officially authorized to speak on behalf of the congresswoman, unless they were given a memo which outlined her position on a topical issue that was generating public interest. Then they were allowed to quote from that.

    "If anyone in this office is going to put their foot in their mouths," Mrs. Mink used to tell us, "please let it be me, and not you."

    I came to appreciate Mrs. Mink's established staff protocols as good legislative office policy. It served to protect her staff from either creating or getting caught up in some inadvertent controversy, by placing the responsibility for communications and messaging directly upon the congresswoman herself, where it properly belonged. When I returned to work at our state legislature in 1999, I subsequently adopted that policy for the Speaker's office.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Whatever. More excuses. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:51:56 AM EST
    I can assure you, the people who staff Jim McDermott's office are not only very well-versed on policy, they are happy to discuss it with constituents phoning in. And, even though I can't barely tolerate Cantwell, the same is true for the people staffing her Seattle office  -- they know their stuff and don't try to fob you off on the D.C. office.

    I can also tell you that it is near impossible to get through to a live person at Patty Murray's D.C. office pretty much any time of day, any day of the week. That number almost ALWAYS goes directly to voice mail.

    So much for being accessible to us slobs who pay their salaries and pay for most of their health care.

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    America, where we take the from the people with nothing to give to the people with everything, all in the name of fairness and championed by the followers of jesus.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    the Right thinks the theory of evolution is unGodly but yet has this overpowering urge to keep the perceived alpha males and females groomed and well fed while retaining those at the bottom of the pecking order as safe targets for their ferocity.

    Parent
    How do you take (none / 0) (#37)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:40:49 PM EST
    from people with nothing

    Parent
    By Reducing... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    ...the little we give them.

    Parent
    Some High Profile Conservatives (none / 0) (#41)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:57:08 PM EST
    don't support the cuts.  But not for the reason you might suspect.  Some of the biggest lobbyists pushing for no food stamp cuts are paid by Coke, Lays and other junk food makers.

    I am no fan of Bloomberg or Michelle and their efforts to restrict what folks buy with their own money.  But in this case I would like to see food stamp purchases restricted to real food.  No soda, no chips, no candy, ect.

    But the bigger issue is the structural problem that forces to depend on food stamps.

    Parent

    Try buying "real" produce (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    meat and bread at 1.40 a meal.

    Parent
    Don't ignore structural issues (none / 0) (#47)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    During the Great Depression lots of folks lived on farms and/or had small gardens where they could grow food to supplement what they bought or that charities donated.

    Today there are massive numbers of folks living in congested urban areas without even enough space to grow pot.  There is also a massive lack of skills to survive.

    I just returned from six weeks sailing in the Dry Tortugas.  Probably half my food was lobster and Mutton Snapper I harvested my self.  I also supplemented my water supply using tarps to catch rain water.  My boat has extensive solar panels for refrigeration and navigation, not to mention computer use.

    It is one thing to say the needy should be provided assistance.  It is a different thing all together to support a system that creates a dependent class and then demand support for them.

    The system is what needs to be changed.

    Parent

    Great... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 04:09:11 PM EST
    ...so your plan is to send all the nations poor on a six week sailing adventure.  Then what, have them grow lobsters in flop houses ?  Or buy/rent their own boat complete with solar panels and whatever other things they will need to be 'self-sufficient' ?  Pleaze, you can't even understand how ridiculous that entire statement is.  Real Mitt Romneyish, "Why can't they just jump on a boat and catch their own GD lobsters, lazy-a$$ takers ?"

    What makes you so confident that poor folks aren't growing their own food ?  But I highly doubt may have the 2 acres it takes to support a grown adult, add in kids, and I am pretty sure most of the Nation's poor will never, ever own that kind of property.

    Skills to survive ?  Surely you jest; I give you 45mins in the dead center of Houston's poorest area on a good day.  Pretty sure most of those folks would outlast you any day of the week in a real survival mode, not sailing for pleasure 'survival mode'.

    The only structural issue is people like you think poor people like being poor and that the only thing holding them back is the little help we give them.  In a year you can explain why cutting food stamps didn't actually reduce the number of poor folks, because you clearly believe the aid is hindering them so reducing it should reduce the number of poor, correct ?  

    And lastly, you know when unemployment is at say 10%, that doesn't mean 1 in ten are lazy, it means for every 10 people that want a job, 1 doesn't get one.  For the country, that is like 20,000,000 people who don't have a job because it doesn't exist.

    Parent

    Did you cut class the day they taught economics (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    Especially when you post about 10% unemployment.  Structural unemployment is often defined as workers having the wrong skills or being in the wrong place.  I have no doubt there are poor folks who really want a job.  I have no doubt there are poor folks who are hard workers and everything else employers are looking for.  But as you point out there are no jobs.  That is what the problem is.

    There are currently about two million fewer people working than when Obama took office, which is better than the around five million at the worst of Obama's first term.  Of course the population has grown as well, but the labor participation rate is at historic lows.  The economy is bad and there is no way to sugar coat it.  

    This is the biggest problem I have with Obama, he has not fixed the economy.  

    Parent

    "dependent class" (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    Yes, why can't they all be like me: one man carving out a place in the wilderness, exposed to the elements and never depending on anyone or anything..(the first delusion)

    I can't help thinking how much this reminds me of one of those yuppie "self actualization", I-am-the-world, wilderness retreat accounts. I went through est, so why can't all those welfare mothers and their kids?

    Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism in all it's glory.

    Parent

    Erhard Seminar Training. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by fishcamp on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:39:46 PM EST
    that was the one where you paid your money to find out what you already knew.  maybe I should start FST...fishcamp seminar training. ragebot's living the dream and I say congratulations.  

    Parent
    They probably can't be like me (none / 0) (#141)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    Because I have an undergrad degree in mathematics, a MS un urban planning, and a JD.  I spent 25 years working in well paying jobs and retired.

    But what they can do is better understand their reality and try and change it.

    Parent

    Maybe, one day, ... (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    ... if they work really hard at it, that "dependent class" will understand their reality as well as you think you do.

    Heh.

    Parent

    I can tell you that my (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    family's been top heavy with MS and PHD holding fools for years. As Samuel Johnson said, any plodding blockhead can do it. For another glaring example of credentials meaning nothing, see that rookery of malign lunacy the Heritage Foundation.

    But congratulations on all your sucess, just the same.

    Parent

    Ragebot, you are so unbelievable special (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    I wonder if I should even be typing on the same blog as you. Your (hot) air is rarefied.

    Parent
    Gee, do you think these "needy folks" (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:22:37 AM EST
    can buy a boat like yours complete with all your equipment, pay for gas to and from the Dry Tortugas on their $1.49 per day food allotment so that they can crow about how self-sufficient they are?

    Parent
    hey c'mon...he's a fisherman (none / 0) (#159)
    by fishcamp on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    and in my book that makes ragebot ok.  of course spellcheck turns his name into rarebit.  I may run down to Looe Key as soon as I fix my trailer lights, the U bolt in my bow and I'm sure there's more...always is with boats.

    Parent
    Well at least you are in the US (none / 0) (#169)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:21:07 PM EST
    I consider cruising out side the US to be little more than fixing things on a boat in exotic locations.

    Parent
    "congested urban areas..." (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:19:06 PM EST
    Buy them tickets to Detroit.  The place is so emptied out that one group has purchased 140 acres of abandoned lots and will be planting them with hardwoods.

    Parent
    Walmart and other... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    big food retailers can't be happy about it either...which makes you wonder who actually wants these cuts besides the kick the dog brigade and government debt hawks?

    Parent
    Walmart should also be (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:51:15 PM EST
    alarmed at the food stamp cuts not just because so many of their shoppers use them to shop for food there, but also because so many of their employees get food stamps (they are paid so poorly).  If their employees didn't get food stamps (and a lot of them also depend upon Medicaid), Walmart might actually have to start paying their employees more.   (Which they should be doing anyway.)  In essence, taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart.
    Welfare for poor people is terrible, but welfare for big business is perfectly acceptable.  You know that, kdog.
    :-(

    Parent
    Epic ironies in that, taxpayer subsidization of (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:24:00 PM EST
    Walmart's crappy wage structure has actually subsidized Walmart's offshoring of manufacturing.  Which depresses wages even more.  Which forces more people to Walmart's price points. etc. etc.

    Parent
    Well, it's the way it is, Mr. Natural (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:54:37 PM EST
    Walmart is definitely creating more and more customers for themselves, as you said.  It's the ultimate expression of capitalism, after all.

    Fewer expenses for wages and the purchase of their stock-in-trade, and more income from even more customers who can't afford to shop anywhere else and have to buy their products, therefore the result is more profit for them!  
    The executives and owners of Walmart are ecstatic, and after all, who else counts?
    {{Sigh}}

    Parent

    I don't think that's ironic Mr Natural (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by sj on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:02:27 PM EST
    I think that is functioning as intended.

    Parent
    Maybe the structural problems should (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:36:00 PM EST
    be solved prior to taking away food. If people have good paying jobs they do not qualify for food stamps.

    Parent
    I don'tthink (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    Michelle Obama ever supported an effort to "restrict what folks buy with their own money."  As far as I can recall, her efforts were to encourage people (especially kids) to encourage better eating habits - including having more fruits and vegetables, to get out and exercise, and to encourage schools to offer more healthful lunches and snacks in their vending machines.

    But I can't recall that she ever said anything remotely like "You will not spend money on potato chips and pop."

    Parent

    No to the best of my knowledge she (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 04:39:31 PM EST
    never supported an effort to "restrict what folks buy with their own money."

    OTOH $2.2 B was stripped from the food stamp program to pay for Michelle's nutrition program.

    With his wife by his side, President Obama on Monday signed the child nutrition bill, strongly pushed by the first lady, who has made nutrition part of her campaign to help the young get healthy.
    ...
    The bill also increases the spending per meal by about 6 cents, President Obama noted. He said the money for funding the increase came from cuts in the food-stamp program but that he was committed to working with Congress to find a way to restore those funds. link


    Parent
    Dan Froomkin and Liliana Segura (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    joining Glenn Greenwald in the new media venture:

    We're very excited to announce two new members joining our team: Dan Froomkin and Liliana Segura. Dan and Liliana will work alongside Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, and me as we develop our new venture with Pierre Omidyar.

    Dan Froomkin is a veteran journalist who has received national acclaim for his writing about U.S. politics and media coverage. He's been particularly focused on the issue of journalistic accountability - i.e. correcting misinformation, asking critical questions, and holding those in power accountable to their actions.

    He was preparing to launch a website called FearlessMedia.org when we approached him about working with us. Before that, he was senior Washington correspondent and Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post. During 12 years working for The Washington Post, he spent three as editor and six as the writer of the popular and controversial White House Watch column. Dan has also worked since 2004 for the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, most of that time as deputy editor of the NiemanWatchdog.org website.

    Liliana Segura is journalist and editor with a longtime focus on prisons, prisoners, and the failings and excesses of the U.S. criminal justice system-from wrongful convictions to the death penalty. She covered these and other issues most recently as an editor at The Nation Magazine, where she edited a number of award-winning stories. Previously she was a senior editor at AlterNet, where she was in charge of civil liberties coverage during the early days of Obama's presidency. She is on the board of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty and the Applied Research Center, a U.S. racial justice think tank.

    Link is to the temporary site.

    Have to say I think this venture has the potential to be a platform for the practice of actual journalism.  Which is not to say it will or should have the last/only word, but I hope what it does is raise the bar for media outlets everywhere.

    A nice op-ed piece on (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    Glenn Greenwald and his new  adventure,  by Roger Cohen, NYT, November 1, 2013.  Mr.Cohen reports that Greenwald is on a double mission, to push back in the name of freedom against the surveillance state and to reinvigorate journalism through "an aggressive and adversarial position to political and corporate power," an undertaking he will pursue through a new online publication backed with $250 million from the eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar, the same amount Jeff Bezos paid for The Washington Post.  

    Parent
    Holy Cow (none / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:27:36 PM EST
    Did you go to Dan Froomkin's Center for Accountablity (FearlessMedia) site? I could spend the whole day there. Links to real, in-depth articles which also have lots of linky goodness.

    I am getting very, very excited about this new journalism venture if that's the calibre of stuff we can expect.

    Parent

    Snowden seeking clemency from the US (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:45:00 PM EST
    suffice to say, don't think it's going to happen.

    NYT Link

    I think you're exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sj on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    I also think he is doing the right thing by taking these steps.

    Did you read his letter?  D@mn, but he is well-spoken. In addition to being brave. He is his own best advocate. I don't know how he does it, but he doesn't give back even an inch of whatever he ground he may have gained and still manages to stay measured and deliberate in tone.

    Parent

    Yes, the prospects (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    for other than treatment designed to make an example of Edward Snowden are not very good.   However, if President Obama actually welcomes a debate on surveillance, and if he really did not know of the extent of spying, Snowden should be considered a whistleblower,  not a traitor.  If not clemency, then leniency that accords community service--as I suggested earlier, assignment to spearhead the ACA website surge would be a better use of his talents and would constitute, in effect, restitution.

    Parent
    Not sure (none / 0) (#96)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:13:49 AM EST
    Snowden is the right fit to fix the web site.  I have seen claims that what he did re the leaks was more the result of bad security by the NSA than great skill on Snowden's part.

    Not to say I have any problem with what Snowden did, just that his strength is not building a huge online system.

    Parent

    Armando (3.25 / 4) (#29)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    You solution was for single payer.  That is not possible.  Not with a Republican House.  Not when even one major Democratic Presidential candidate has ever advocated it.

    My solution:  Abolish hospitals and doctors because we should be seeking preventive vaccines, not just treating disease after it has manifested.  We should not waste money on doctors and hospitals and should spend money instead on prevention.

    Your diary was basically a drive by to throw chum at the crowd.

    Your solution is no solution.   Very disappointing.        

    That's not single payer (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    It's public insurance for the uninsured.

    Parent
    Same thing (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:11:03 PM EST
    smaller scale.

    Not feasible right now either.  Couldn't get a public option out of the Democratic House without the Stupak Amendment.  And, Boehner will allow this to be voted on?

    Parent

    It was possible in 2009 (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:40:41 PM EST
    And will be again in 2016.

    Parent
    Not sure about 2009 (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:02:05 PM EST
    And perhaps 2016, or 2017 after a new President and Congress are sworn in.

    But to get to a Democratic Congress and Hillary as President, Obamacare cannot flop....

    I have said here that a Democratic Congress could graft on a public option--and that only draws jeers here.....

    You have three years until the first real opportunity to address this.  In the meantime, trying to sink the ACA from the Left will be unhelpful.

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:58:43 AM EST
    reason that it wasn't possible or seemed to be impossible back in 2009 was lack of leadership. Obama kept chasing the GOP and they kept moving the goal posts. He allowed the GOP to keep altering the policy.

    The whole grafting on a public option is really silly. Why create a whole new thing when you could just open up Medicare?

    Overall, probably the ACA is not going to be a failure but it's also not going to be a massive success. The underlying problem of our healthcare system still exists.

    Parent

    Can you say "Joe Lieberman"? (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    The principal reason that the Medicare-expansion concept fell was Joe L ... he announced against it late in the day, and the votes were not there.  (Remember the difficulty of getting the numbers to line up as well when it came to a number of other Senators such as Nebraska's Nelson and Arkansas' Lincoln and even Max Baucus.)

    Given the reality of the Senate at the time, no amount of so-called "leadership" would have persuaded certain Senators against what they perceived to be their own interests.  As you know, you might lead that horse to water, but you can't force them to do much else ... especially in the Senate.  The atmosphere and the committee rules that allowed for the equation of "leadership" with "my way or the highway" has eroded for a number of years.  In many ways, the consensual model of leadership reflects what has been happening bit-by-bit in society overall ... the move away from top-down as the standard or preferred form of management.

    In any event, we are here now (as they say.)  In that regard, MKS emphasizes an important point: If we kick the legs out from under the ACA at this point, the policy reality for a long time will be that generation(s) will see nothing/no improvement/nada for a long time to come ... because, given the history of the earlier attempts such as the Clinton initiative in 1993 and now the hard-fought coalition building to get as far as the ACA, it would be highly unlikely that anyone would go into a buzz saw for a long time.  (As I've said before, I would strongly prefer a gradual expansion of Medicare for everyone ... after we establish the ACA and after people can adjust to that amount of change so as not to forfeit the gains that have been made.)

    Parent

    How do (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:12:30 AM EST
    you know leadership wouldn't have worked? It was not even tried. I think people like you and MKS would have a much better argument with all this is if Obama had actually tried and failed vs. when someone said "the votes aren't there" Obama folded like a cheap lawn chair. Obama never took leadership on this issue. He immediately handed it off to someone else to write and frankly it seemed he really didn't care what the policy included. He only wanted to sign something so that he could say he signed something.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:33:32 AM EST
    Obama's Engagement On Health Care Has 'Dried Up': Dem Senator

    Despite urging Democratic senators on Wednesday to forge ahead on health care reform, President Obama and his aides have been largely hands-off in guiding the legislative process, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post. And on Thursday a leading Senate progressive called out the White House publicly for abandoning the leadership role that is needed to get legislation passed.


    Democrats Put Lower Priority on Health Bill

    Jim Webb: Health-care law represents a leadership failure for Obama

    "If you were going to do something of this magnitude, you have to do it with some clarity, with a clear set of objectives from the White House," added Webb, who opted not to run for a second term this year. "...It should have been done with better direction from the White House."

    He faulted Obama for playing too passive a role in shaping the legislation. Taking a lesson from Bill Clinton's failed 1994 health-care overhaul effort--which was faulted for its micromanagement of the details of the bill--Obama opted to spell out a broad set of goals, and let Congress work out the details.

    What happened in the end, Webb said, "was five different congressional committees voted out their version of health-care reform, and so you had 7,000 pages of contradictory information. Everybody got confused. ... From that point forward, Obama's had a difficult time selling himself as a decisive leader."

    Cheering quietly from the sidelines while waiting to be handed a bill is precisely how you end up with numerous alternatives and no consensus.

    Parent

    Chicken and eggs (1.00 / 2) (#181)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:25:40 AM EST
    If the votes aren't there, then breaking the china in protest won't help.

    But I have learned something here:  It was not only Obama's fault that we didn't get the public option back then--and only his fault, exclusively; it will perpetually be his fault forever--and so leave Hillary alone and do not expect anything from her on healthcare.

    Parent

    You can (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    create support for an idea by advocating for it none of which Obama did. He disengaged and when someone else led with "the votes aren't there" he followed instead of trying to change the situation.

    Parent
    First ... define "leadership" (none / 0) (#174)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:41:27 AM EST
    Many years ago, telling people what to do and/or commanding it was considered the epitome of "leadership."  Unfortunately, the "A" style of command tends to work best in limited situations such as generals commands in war, police directives at a crime scene, firemen shouts at a fire, etc.  What is usually needed (and the superior form of "leadership") in the complex situations of structural change or controversial policy change is the style of leadership that builds coalitions/compromise pragmatically necessary to bring about the desired results.  In 2009, the numbers told it all.

    Yes, it would have been great if a word or command from the President would accomplish what we all wanted ... there are nations where leaders can do that :)  And, most important, none of us knows to date what sidebar discussions, late night cajoling, classic attempts that always take place behind-the-scenes ... none of us really knows squat about that.  We have our beliefs, of course.  For me, I think that the Dem leaders had learned a lot about what was doable in 2009 in terms of America's longstanding inability to move off the dime in the area of health care--let's call it the "we want to, but we can't because it might hurt/be socialism/take our doctors away/cost too much/is un-American" syndrome that prevented any change in the past.

    The judgment made about what was doable and the getting of it, imo, is evidence of the needed collaborative style of leadership.  For many of us, it was important to stay ahead of the onslaught of destructive $$$ advertising that confronted the well-intended and strong attempt made by the Clintons in 1993.  My Democratic friends were determined to learn from that loss (and the all-or-nothing situation that Sen. Edward Kennedy confronted years before as well, the situation that he later said he would compromise if he to do it again.)

    Positions on what-could-have-happened are similar to angels-on-pinheads arguments today.  Maybe, in future, we will learn the real story of who-said-what-to-whom in private, as well as what the real calculus was by the principal players.  Without that, all we have are the numbers of Senators who publicly stated positions combined with the voting numbers and our own speculations.

    Parent

    "Leadership" (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:10:52 AM EST
    lead·er·ship
    [lee-der-ship] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group

    as in, not sitting on your hands cheering quietly from the sidelines while waiting for Congress to hand you something - anything - so you can call it a win.

    Parent

    There are many books written on the subject (none / 0) (#183)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 12:10:34 PM EST
    Someday you might want to consider the studies on the subject of leadership.  For example, the definition which you provide is merely a lead-in to a discussion of what leadership is, was, should be and the comparisons of the several forms and styles associated with differing challenges.  To say that one "guides" has many meanings beyond the simple starting point of a dictionary blurb.  But, it is a good start for a discussion.  (Your last sentence, of course, is one person's subjective interpretation.  IMO.)

    "Leadership" in some programs has entire courses dedicated to that subject in higher education curricula.

    Parent

    All of which ... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    ... is entirely irrelevant to Obama's utter lack of leadership on healthcare.  I get it ... you're impressed by his "leadership"/11th dimensional strategy on the issue.

    Some people set the bar very low.

    Parent

    Yman: Two things I must say (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 04:14:37 PM EST
    1. Based on your comments about "leadership," my read is that your response is playfully superficial and that you either are unaware of or act unaware of what "leadership" is.  The "direct" model which you referenced earlier from the sparse definition, e.g., may best be exemplified by the Bush II foreign policy in the Mideast.  Understanding how to "lead" in a collaborative and coalition-building way (aka well-positioned agreements & deals reminiscent of the old-school) was not only relevant, but President Obama's astute deployment of those skills allowed all of us--finally--to realize actual healthcare legislation that had so often eluded others,  He played the hand he was dealt (and its given numbers) very well.

    2. On this issue, I do align with MKS ... and not because we set the bar low, but because we both appear to set a high bar that required actual legislation in addition to philosophical discussion.  It is the pragmatic knowing when & how to cut a deal because falling-on-one's-sword, as in the past, accomplished nothing but spilled blood.  Clearly, you have a standard or position from which you do not move.  That is your prerogative.  Meanwhile, I look forward to seeing progress with the legislation that was possible, and the incremental improvement on that score that inevitably follows.  

    It is ok to disagree.  Lets not impugn each other's right and responsibility to do so.

    Parent
    Well, then ... (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 04:41:07 PM EST
    1)  Your "read" would be wrong about me and Obama.  His "astute deployment" of those skills was waiting for a bill to be handed to him while violating numerous promises of real reform, resulting in the Republican Plan of 1994.

    Meh.

    2)  You are happy with moving the ball a few inches and calling that "incremental gains", despite Obama's opportunity for real gains and - in fact - his specific promises of same (drug reimportation, a public option, open hearings, no backroom deals with the drug lobby, etc.).

    That's what cheerleaders do.

    As far as "impugning each other's right and responsibility to disagree", who's doing that?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    sure we don't know everything but it would seem that we know enough to surmise that Obama really didn't trying and there are reported stories of Obama actually working behind the scenes to cut deals on the legislation.

    Parent
    Ahhhhhhh (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    Obama's leadership consisted of back romm deals with Insurance, Pharma and the Hospital Industry to eliminate those pesky things that might have actually reduced costs and help provide real affordable health care. Those pesky things included (but not limited to) a public option based on Medicare rate, negotiation of prescription drug prices and reimportation of prescription drugs.

     

    Parent

    Oh I forgot one of the other agreements (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    with Pharma regarding prescription drugs. In a back room deal he agreed to allow for overcharging dual eligibles for prescription drugs. In this thread there has been much made about what was said by DEMOCRATIC Senators. Here is a Democratic Senator confirming the back room deal with Pharma and opening defends keeping the rotton deal.

    So Senate Democrats on the Finance Committee offered an amendment that would enable the federal government to bargain for lower drug prices for their bulk purchasing, a direct assault on the White House/Big Pharma deal from a few months back. Basically it would shift poor seniors back onto Medicaid for their drug purchasing, where the government can negotiate discounts. This would save the government over $80 billion dollars.

    And Tom Carper of Delaware defended the secret deal in the most amazing of ways:

    I was not involved in negotiations with PhRMA but I believe that the administration was, obviously PhRMA was, and I presume this committee was involved in some way in those negotiations. And what PhRMA agreed to do through those negotiations is to pay about 80 billion dollars over 10 years to help fill up half the donut hole. That's my understanding. And they are prepared to go forward and to honor that commitment. As I understand it, the commitment from our colleague Senator Nelson would basically double what was negotiated with PhRMA.

    And whether you like PhRMA or not -- remember I talked earlier today in our opening statements, I talked about four core values, and one of those is the golden rule, treat other people the way I want to be treated?

    I'll tell you -- if someone negotiated a deal with me and I agreed to put up say, 80 dollars or 80 million dollars or 80 billion dollars and then you came back and said to me a couple of weeks later -- no no, I know you agreed to do 80 billion and I know you were willing to help support through an advertising campaign this particular -- not even this particular bill, just the idea of generic health care reform? No, we're going to double -- we're going to double what you agreed in those negotiations to do. That's not the way -- that's not what I consider treating people the way I'd want to be treated.

    That just doesn't seem right to me. link

    Seems a word or command from the President could easily accomplish what the industries wanted....us not so much.

    Parent

    All moot (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:44:57 AM EST
    Hillary's on deck now.  So, let's see what happens.

    Parent
    "On deck" (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    No one is going to be "on deck" if Obama continues to perform as poorly as he has been, on this issue and many others.  Every time the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot and it looks like they'll never be able to win a Presidential election, Obama stays right on their heels.  With an approval rating of 41%, I wouldn't claim anyone is "on deck".

    Moreover, as crappy as the ACA has been so far (both substantively and politically), I wouldn't expect much in the way of healthcare reform for a looooonnnnng time.  Particularly no real changes, like single-payer or even a public option.

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    right that the chances of something happening are pretty slim right now. I just want to cringe when I think of the fact that Obama could not even manage the roll out.

    The thing Hillary has going for her is that she was in the state department during all this and had nothing to do with it. Smart lady I would say.

    Parent

    And here was your chance (1.00 / 2) (#180)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:22:29 AM EST
    to lay down your attacks and actually be positive about something....

    Parent
    Got it--leave Hillary alone (1.00 / 4) (#182)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:26:28 AM EST
    If that silly .... (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    ... misstatement was intentional, you need to work on your arguing skills.

    If it was unintentional, you need to work on reading comprehension.

    Parent

    This comment shows (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:11:33 PM EST
    your limitations and myopia.  You think you are focused on detail, and you miss the big picture.....Head up, look down the field.

    Parent
    The "big picture" ... (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 03:46:48 PM EST
    ... is you misstating my comment and twisting it into something it clearly wasn't (i.e. "Leave Hillary alone")

    That's not the "big picture" ... that's a little, pre-schooler's fingerpainting.

    Parent

    The big picture (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 03:54:02 PM EST
    is the cake is baked for Obama.  He will be playing defense from here on out.

    Hillary has a real shot--especially with good numbers in the Senate, as all those Republican Senators who were elected in 2010 from Blue states are up.

    You continue to find fault at every turn....and as you point out current success of Obama would be helpful to Hillary.

    You fight micro battles when other bigger issues are on the horizon.

    Parent

    All of which has precisely ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    ... nothing to do with my comment to which you responded "Got, it.  Leave Hillary alone".

    BTW - Has a "real shot" to do what?  Are you trying to suggest that 2-3 years after Obamacare rolls out (or tries to roll out) she's supposed to go back and push real healthcare reform ala her 2008 platform (Medicare Plus - aka single-payer)?

    Because that is seriously funny.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 04:50:23 PM EST
    And that was actually Armando's suggested solution.

    If Obamacare does better than you assume, Hillary will have a number of favorable things going for her.  The continuing changing demographics, the continuing transition of Republicans away from social conservatism into isolationist Libertarians, and the continuing collapse of the political power of religious fundamentalists, all auger well.

    You apparently have not given this much thought.  You all have been saying for years how much better Hillary is than Obama.  Well, she is up.   I hope you are right.   First things first, she will have to beat a very confident and thinner Christie.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:08:10 PM EST
    His "suggestion" was to fix Obamacare and improve it - not attempt to pass single-payer 2-3 years after Obama screws it up.

    Brings to mind the old saying about men always expecting women to clean up their messes ...

    BTW - As far as her running in 2016, I have no idea who the Republican candidate will be - but if she decides to run she'll also have to overcome the negative coattails of a President who came in with near record approval ratings and has steadily declined to 41%.

    Good luck to any Democratic candidate who has to do that.

    Parent

    Good. This is going to be very (1.00 / 1) (#190)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    interesting around here, especially after Hillary says she is running.

    Parent
    Because Obama did not campaign (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:02:07 AM EST
    on just opening up Medicare for all, and neither did Hillary.

    Just opening up Medicare is seen as the rational way to go--here.   It was not a viable political option back then.

    And, the idea that more leadership would have resulted in a public option is speculative.  Just guessing.  What we do know is that Pelosi could only pass a public option out of the House at the expense of the Stupak Amendment.  Most here thought that was an unacceptably high price.  So, given that piece of actual evidence, as opposed to speculation, it is hard to say that a public option was there for the taking.

    I understand it is Gospel here that a public option was easy pie available....but there is not actual factual support for that.

    Parent

    Hillary (4.25 / 4) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:16:46 AM EST
    did campaign on opening up Medicare but yes Obama did not. Obama even campaigned against mandates. Not viable? That is giving up before even trying. All we heard is we can't do this or we can't do that without even trying or Obama giving away the store before an option was even discussed. You see the public option was a problem because nobody understood exactly what it was and why bother with something new when you could just add onto to something that already existed? People didn't know whether a public option was quasi-medicaid or what?

    Again, with Stupak it was another cave and when the actual votes were counted there was enough for it to pass without the Stupak Amendment. From the beginning to the end there was a complete lack of leadership wasting over a year chasing Republican votes, begging them to go along and the continual moving of goal posts. It's really sad that it has taken Obama five or six years to figure out what the posters here at TL have known for years. So who really knows what we could have gotten if Obama wasn't so darn worried about what the GOP thought.  

    Parent

    I would refer you to Conrad (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:24:43 AM EST
    He was opposed and actively so....

    If you do not build public support during a campaign for something like that, no LBJ style arm twisting will pull it off.

    BTW LBJ arm twisted his own party.....and he had two powerful voices in support.....MLK and posthumous JFK.  The Civil Rights legislation became easier when it was seen as a legacy of a martyred President.

    Parent

    LBJ (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:35:06 AM EST
    could twist his own party's arm because he had, you know, built relationships with those people, because he had worked with them for more than 5 minutes....

    Parent
    He was before your time, right? (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:04:28 AM EST
    LBJ was reviled by the Left back then....This new mythologizing of him is very interesting.

    Parent
    They could revile him all they wanted (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    He got a pretty liberal agenda through Congress though, didn't he? Civil Rights, War on Poverty, Head Start, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Work Study, Gun Control, etc.

    Was he perfect?  No.  But all the "left" (really, only some on the left) can remember is Vietnam.

    Parent

    You must have missed it (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:56:34 AM EST
    You diminish the power and hold that the Vietnam  War had  over us.....

    It was the topic of intense conversation, not only in the papers and on t.v., but also just day-to-day.  People did not want to go to Vietnam....

    You obviously weren't there or you would not say something like this.

    Ah, you know, I just remembered why you say only some on the Left had issues with LBJ.....You are parroting someone else...

    Parent

    Gore Vidal (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    didn't call it the United States of Amnesia fer nothin'.

    Parent
    The only (4.25 / 4) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:30:03 AM EST
    thing I have been shown is that the senate was opposed to putting a public option in the ACA. That is different than opening up Medicare. One is an existing program that can be added on. The other one is a completely new set up.

    Well, of course Obama didn't build support for anything in 2008. He didn't campaign on issues so that is part of his problem. I mean h*ll he's had to send Bill Clinton out to explain the ACA which is really pathetic that Obama can't even explain his own policy to voters.

    Parent

    Conrad repeatedly said (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    there were not the votes for the public option in the Senate.  When a Democratic Senator tells you there were not the votes, I would pay attention.

    What Conrad said is a fact.  Not speculation.   Show me where someone else said there were the votes in the Senate for the public option.

    Pelosi skinned that cat with two votes to spare.  The public option was not the easy pie alternative many here say.   And if the public option only passed the House with two votes to spare at the expense of the Stupak Amendment, and the Senate never passed it at all, why on earth would anyone think single payer was any more feasible?

    Parent

    That's funny (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:31:12 AM EST
    Conrad repeatedly said there were not the votes for the public option in the Senate.  When a Democratic Senator tells you there were not the votes, I would pay attention.

    What Conrad said is a fact.  Not speculation.

    So a Senator who was actively opposing a public option and pushing his own alternative makes a public statement that there aren't enough votes to pass a public option, and you think that makes it a "fact"?!?

    Now you're just trying to be funny.

    Parent

    Look at articles after that date (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:07:57 AM EST
    Are you equating a non-profit (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    with a public option?

    You do know what a non-profit is, right?

    Parent

    No, I'm not (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:54:35 PM EST
    ... and nothing in my post suggests otherwise.  Not sure how you got that convoluted interpretation, unless your point was merely to ask this assinine "question":

    You do know what a non-profit is, right?


    Parent
    You twist again (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:25:11 AM EST
    It is a fact that Conrad said it.  It is a fact that he said he would not vote for a public option.

    Parent
    Because, as Yman said (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    He was never for it.

    Oh, and his count on how he didn't have the votes?

    Dubious.

    Parent

    You make no sense (none / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    Yes, Conrad was opposed to the public option.

    That is the point.

    Parent

    No, the point is (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:51:16 AM EST
    Conrad saying the votes weren't there doesn't mean the votes weren't actually there.  He was just talking, as politicians with agendas do.

    You keep spouting his comment as gospel, when in fact, his claims about not having the votes were dubious at best.

    Parent

    "Spouting" (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    Conrad was (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    a well positioned Democratic Senator.  I'll his word over your speculation.

    Parent
    I'll take (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    the various whip counts of multiple people quoted in the article over your interpretation and a politician with self interests.

    Parent
    One problem (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    Conrad gets to vote in the Senate--you do not.

    And "whip counts?"  Do you know what that means?....It does not mean articles written by reporters who are speculating......

    Parent

    "A well positioned Dem Senator" ... (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:20:51 PM EST
    ... who was actively opposed to a public option claimed there weren't enough votes?!?

    I'm shocked.

    Parent

    I'll "take" his word (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:59:51 AM EST
    over your speculation.

    Parent
    And Lieberman said (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    that he would do anything in his power to stop the public option because he thought that it was the "camel's nose under the tent" to single payer....There you go...no need for some to post revisionist history...

    link

    Parent

    People forget (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:03:28 PM EST
    that there were a few Democrats who were not all that progressive.  

    Parent
    People also forget ... (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    ... that, when the ACA was working its way through Congress, Lieberman was not a Democrat.

    Parent
    Was he, or was he not (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    the 60th vote?

    Parent
    Was he, or was he not ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:18:11 PM EST
    ... an independent, having lost the Democratic primary?

    People forget that there were a few Democrats who were not all that progressive.

    They also forget what they wrote just a few minutes earlier.

    Parent

    Liberman was considered (none / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:19:24 PM EST
    a Democratic vote.

    Your response is just laughable, contorted b.s.

    Parent

    Ohhhhhh .... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:16:41 PM EST
    ... Lieberman was "considered" a Democratic vote ...

    ... as opposed to what you said previously:

    People forget that there were a few Democrats who were not all that progressive.

    BTW - Lieberman was "considered"?  By whom?  Are these the same "people" who think that "single-payer" means only a Canadian-style single-payer system with no option for private insurance?  or should I say ...

    ... same person?

    Heh.

    Parent

    You deliberately miss the point (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 12:22:56 AM EST
    It was about the number of votes....

    Without Lieberman or Conrad or Baucus you lose altitude very quickly....

    The so called filibuster proof majority of 60 included Lieberman....because just counting tells you so.

    You remind me of young lawyers who love to fall into the classic trap of trying to impeach a witness on a collateral matter....Doesn't work....

    Try addressing the merits....

    Parent

    I already did (none / 0) (#172)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:16:04 AM EST
    You called Lieberman a Democrat.

    He wasn't.

    More importantly, some actual leadership from the White House could have helped.  Not to mention that they could have used the budget reconciliation process to pass it with less than 60 votes (as indicated even in your link).  Finally, another option would be to stop making promises that your @$$ can't cash or - at the very least - deliver on the ones you can (no backroom deals, public hearings, drug importation, etc., etc.).

    Parent

    Care to repsond to this? (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:47:17 AM EST
    There is one post of mine that you conspicuously do not respond to:  Where I ask you who did Lieberman caucus with?

    Care to respond?  This will probably be the only other post you do not respond to.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#177)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:05:46 AM EST
    He caucused with Democrats.  Of course, all that means is that he would vote with Democrats on some issues.

    Care to respond to this:

    And Lieberman said (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    that he would do anything in his power to stop the public option because he thought that it was the "camel's nose under the tent" to single payer....There you go...no need for some to post revisionist history...

    People forget (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:03:28 PM EST
    that there were a few Democrats who were not all that progressive.

    Was Lieberman a Democrat, or did he just vote with them sometimes?

    Parent

    Who did Lieberman caucus with? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:14:56 PM EST
    What an asinine argument....

    Parent
    Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by sj on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    also caucuses with the Democrats and he isn't a Dem either. He pushes from the left and Lieberman pushes from the right. And, neither Sanders nor Lieberman were superdelegates because neither were Democrats.

    Sen. Lieberman is an independent member of the U.S. Senate and that is the reason he is not an unpledged delegate; because he is not a "Democratic member." Yes, Sen. Lieberman may caucus with Senate Democrats but [it's] not the same thing.
    Lieberman agreed to caucus with the Democrats after being bribed with the promise that he could keep chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

    In 2008 Lieberman addressed the Republican National Convention endorsing John McCain.

    In 2012, he was invited to neither Convention.

    Frankly, I'm truly shocked that any Obama supportor would hold up Lieberman as an example a Democratic Senator. He may be/may have been influential but not in a good way.

    Who did Lieberman caucus with? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:14:56 PM MDT

    What an asinine argument....

    Of course, you will no doubt consider this an asinine argument because it doesn't support the view you held when you started the conversation.


    Parent
    Of course he SAID it (none / 0) (#144)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    But the substance of what he was saying (that there were not enough votes to pass a public option) was merely his opinion - which is, of course, what you were claiming.

    Parent
    Yman, you are good at (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:24:24 PM EST
    martialing and citing facts....but it is apparent that you spend your time in divorce court and not in front of a jury....

    Some of your arguments are too tricky, too hairsplitting, too lacking in common sense....

    Lose Conrad and you lose your 6o vote filibuster proof majority.   Lose Lieberman and you now have at most 58 votes.  And, I suppose Conrad is biased against the Public Option, and so you think that is the basis to toss out his comments about other Senators?   If he were wrong, he could have been easily embarrassed, and I think politicians more than anything want to avoid that.

    But even so, you do not have 60 strong for the Public Option, making it much harder.  

    Parent

    My arguments are "lacking" ... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:49:32 PM EST
    ... in nothing.

    You claimed that Conrad's claim was a fact that deserved special weight because he was a Democratic Senator.  His statement was an opinion - a self-serving argument made by someone wanting to kill any chance of a public option.

    But since we're down to citing opinions as fact, you didn't need 60 votes to pass it.  You needed actual leadership from the guy who promised that any legislation he signed must include a public option.  Lacking that, you could also have done it with 50+ votes through the reconciliation process.

    That was easy.

    Parent

    No, not really (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:18:12 PM EST
    No one said it would be "easy" (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:20:01 PM EST
    Just that it could have been done, as your article confirms.

    Just sticking with your method of citing opinions as facts.

    Parent

    The way (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:21:58 AM EST
    Obama had it set up was a WHOLE NEW set up which would have made it hard to pass. Like I have said his health plan was really stupid. The public option made NO SENSE. Opening up Medicare would have been more akin to doing Medicare Part D. The public option was set up to fail.

    Parent
    Medicare was the more (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:36:56 AM EST
    logical option from a policy standpoint, I agree.....It was never more politically feasible....

    Parent
    How do (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:52:49 PM EST
    you know whether it was feasible or not? It was never discussed and some amorphous public option is a lot easier to defeat that something like Medicare which people actually know and understand how it works.

    Parent
    Perhaps Hillary will campaign (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:15:02 PM EST
    this time on lowering the eligibility age of Medicare?

    The first objection is that Medicare as is does have financial problems in the future.  Hillary did suggest in 2008 creating a donut hole of taxes.....

    Parent

    That is a constructive suggestion (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    HRC can campaign on adding a public option and lowering the eligibility age of Medicare recipients.

    Rome was not built in a day and neither will our health care policy!

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    if you put younger people into the system that will actually put more money into the system. And what is the GOP going to say? I'm sure they'll scream (not that i care) but they thought Medicare Part D which costs 1 trillion was just fine and there was no source of funding for that.

    Parent
    It WAS possible in 2009 (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    It just was never pursued.

    Parent
    More than not pushed (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:22:42 AM EST
    It was negotiated away in back room deals with the hospital industry.

    Obama made a deal with the Federation of American Hospitals, the lobbying group for America's for-profit investor-owned hospitals to kill the public option.

    "Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."


    Parent
    Ah, those secret WH meetings (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    Makes you nostalgic for the time when the secret WH meetings were only with the oil companies and only affected how much you'd pay for gas.....

    Parent
    It was not possible (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:18:57 AM EST
    because it was pursued and Conrad, among others, said it was not possible.

    Show me some evidence that it was possible.

    Parent

    Show me where it WAS pursued (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:41:26 AM EST
    Pelosi passed it out of the Democratic House (3.50 / 2) (#108)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:49:10 AM EST
    by two votes....with the Stupak amendment attached......and I repeat myself because it is apparently necessary.

    Conrad in the Senate said no way.  Beyond that, Conrad actively opposed the public option.   He apparently had a number of other Democratic Senators behind him.  He certainly implied that.  

    And, yes, you are correct that Obama opposed  mandates in 2008.  So what?  The point I am making is that public support for single payer was not sought in the 2008 campaign.  If it is not part of a campaign, it is very hard to pass  as legislation later.

    Parent

    Which is exactly why (4.00 / 4) (#109)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    You start from there as a negotiating position. (And since you want to be technical, Pelosi passed it with 5 votes 220-215, but who's counting?)

    And it doesn't really matter.  This bill from the beginning was screwed up, as Obama negotiated a bunch of stuff away that he never had to, and we are left with a steaming pile.

    But you keep wanting to bring up 2008 and Hillary, etc.  Who cares?  The ONLY reason we are in this mess is because of one thing only - Obama did not want a public option, his financial backers did not want it, and his blind sheep followers thought that all would work out perfectly just because of his awesomeness, without paying attention to the details of what was really going on or allowing any questioning.  

    Parent

    No, you can't "start" (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:00:57 AM EST
    from a position that was not taken in the campaign and be taken seriously.  

    All this armchair negotiation.  My point is that you cannot just toss out "single payer" as a negotiating position because no one campaigned on it.

    Parent

    And, if more than two people (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:01:59 AM EST
    change their votes, does it pass?

    Parent
    "Blind sheep" (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:03:04 AM EST
    insult.  I missed that the first time around.

    Parent
    Sure (1.50 / 2) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:34:58 AM EST
    If people focus on and work to be specific and accurate about the real problems and issues and the necessary solutions.

    That isn't what is happening though, at least not at this time.

    Just being a pack of yahoos chanting Obama sucks together and celebrating every link that can be found that supports that Obama sucks will not accomplish much of real meaning or value to anyone but haters.

    Parent

    More (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:35:41 PM EST
    Unrealism.

    Tell that to metastatic cancer patients whose only hope is to stem the spread, rather than cure the disease.  

    Tell that to people who carry genetic disorders.  How do you get genetic disorders out of the population? Do you kill off people who have them?

    Tell that to accident victims.

    Tell that to people with corpo-fascist work related injuries.

    I agree. Prevention is good, but prevention will not happen in your lifetime, and it certainly won't in mine.  

    We need doctors and hospitals. But we need to get the middle-man out of things, not interject more enforcement of inclusion of the middle-man.

    And you haven't looked up your doctor network on your Exchange plan, because the good folks at Covered California are trying to stall out that access for as long as possible.  When you do, please email me and let me know how you like it.  Remember you'll be paying your hard-earned dollars for that lack of doctors.

    Parent

    It was clearly irony, no? (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    The truth (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    of the matter is Obama made this whole thing WAY more complicated than it needed to be. I knew this was going to have problems because Obama does not care about policy and how it affects people. I mean he even said as much. If you bothered to read his proposal for insurance back in 2008---well, it made ZERO sense what he was doing. He could have opened up Medicare so people would not be forced to give money to insurance companies who did not want to. Yes, the GOP would have screamed but look at them now. They are screaming like it's the end of the world and it's their own d*amn policy!!

    Parent
    Not even Hillary (3.50 / 2) (#74)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:08:20 PM EST
    campaigned on Medicare for all or single payer....

    The best that could be done was Pelosi passing the Public Option out of the House by two votes at the cost of the Stupak Amendment.

    Single payer was never feasible....But that decision was made long ago.  All the I-told-you-so in the world won't make a difference.

    What do you do now is the issue.

    Parent

    You keep saying this (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:09:23 PM EST
    Not even Hillary campaigned on Medicare for all or single payer....

    Do you think repetition will eventually make it true?  Both Hillary and Edwards had a single payer component as part of their healthcare reform plans - it was called Medicare plus.

    POLICY: Clinton and Edwards Open the Back Door

    Quite simply, Clinton has opened the door to the single-payer model--if people want it. The beauty of her plan is that no one is forced into a government plan. Americans will wind up in a Medicare-like plan only if they choose it over a private insurer.

    Clinton is not alone. Last spring John Edwards unfurled a proposal that would force private insurers to compete with a public plan that he calls "Medicare-Plus." Today, in a web-cast sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation, he reiterated his goal "to give consumers a choice; they could gravitate in either direction."

    One journalist on the panel was blunt: "Is this a back-door to single payer?"

    Edwards liked the question. "That's partly right and partly wrong," he said, with a big smile. "It's not intended to take us to single-payer. It's designed to let Americans decide whether or not they want single payer."



    Parent
    We have been through this, yes (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:04:29 PM EST
    And, Hillary did not campaign on Medicare for all....It was a public option.

    Single payer for all, across the board, is as you know not the same as the public option....

    Parent

    Repeating this false claim ... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:35:00 AM EST
    ... also does not make it true.

    Medicare is single-payer.  Opening it up to everyone under 65 as an option - which is "Medicare-plus" (see my links) - is giving them a single-payer option.

    Whatever issue you have dealing with basic facts is your problem.

    Parent

    No, it is your problem (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:06:40 AM EST
    This goes back to your problem of equivocation.

    Single payer is understood to mean Canadian style single payer for all.

    Single payer is not known as an option for single payer for some people.  This is your construction shared by few people.    

     

    Parent

    Heh, heh, heh ... (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    Single payer is understood to mean Canadian style single payer for all.

    "It is understood"?  By whom???  You?!?

    Heh.

    Hate to break it to you, but Canada is not the only single-payer system in the world.  Moreover, Canada has private health insurance, too.  Not to mention the fact that Medicare itself - which is a single-payer system - isn't mandatory for all people.  People can choose not to enroll, if they want.

    But your equivocating/contorting premise - that Medicare isn't a single-payer system if it's optional - is pretty amusing.

    Parent

    Uh, no, as billed by (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    the candidates in 2008.

    No one would openly campaign on "single payer" in 2008 for fear of the socialized medicine tag....and having the anecdotes of long wait times for elective surgery in Canada thrown in their face.

    How it is billed and advertised matters because it is how you build public support.

    And, I have not said here that a Medicare option is not a single payer option.  Actually reading my post matters.

    Parent

    This proves my point (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    Edwards was tee-hee, wink-wink, my plan might evolve into a "single payer" plan-- but "it is not intended to take us to single payer."

    The candidates did not openly espouse "single payer."  They talked about a "public option."  You are talking about "single payer" in a very strained sense that the candidates did not use.  That is the equivocation by you.  Your changing of definition of the word as it was commonly used and understood back then to a new definition that you now use.

    The candidates touted a public option.   They did not accept the label of single payer.  A stealth campaign for disguised single payer is not the same thing as an open campaign for single payer.  

    Parent

    I wish I knew why you were so stuck on (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:42:35 PM EST
    proving somehow that what Obama and Baucus and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries concocted - otherwise known as the PPACA - was the only feasible iteration of "reform" that was even remotely possible.  

    What is the point of that?  

    What you're really saying is that we couldn't have a better plan because a president and a body of legislators in 2009 didn't have the same leadership ability that another president and body of legislators used to take us into two wars on much less evidence of a crisis.

    The fact is, and poll after poll after poll demonstrates this - the people wanted single-payer, or at least the opportunity to participate in an existing single-payer plan.  To be able to sign up for Medicare at 55 instead of 65, for example.

    What happened?  Obama told us to shut up.  That he didn't want to discuss it.  That it wasn't uniquely American enough for us.  

    Who fought for us, MKS?  Does anyone fight for us?

    Who are these people working for?  Silly question.  Banks, Wall Street, Insurance and Big Pharma, Gas/Oil, the military/intelligence juggernaut.

    I have no idea what is gained by continuing to make excuses for these people, to make it sound like a good thing that they fold up like cheap lawn chairs as soon as they have to choose between fighting for us, and serving their corporate masters.

    Reading your comments, I'm prompted to ask if you want us to sprinkle a little salt on the pretzel you've twisted yourself into, because you've yet to give one really good and credible reason why Democrats couldn't lead on this issue, even as you've given us a bazillion reasons why we're supposed to accept their mediocre and self-serving and underhanded efforts to further entrench the insurance industry in an already-dysfunctional and vampiric system.

    Parent

    Yes, thanks, (3.50 / 2) (#165)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:32:06 PM EST
    not just Conrad but Baucus too.

    I am just countering the religious tenets here.....You guys construct these narratives that become established fact, and it ain't true.

    What happened?  Obama told us to shut up.  That he didn't want to discuss it.  That it wasn't uniquely American enough for us.  

    Prove it....Obama said shut up?  Was that before or after Pelosi did pass it out of the House?  This is just something you made up to bolster your narrative......

    I am not the one who is always looking back. You are, always, every single post--well maybe not every one.  Show me ten of your post and let's say about seven all look back with this constant refrain on how awful past decisions were.... Always this constant complaining....Never a positive suggestion as to what to do going forward.

    Want to look forward?  Care to comment on my post saying that perhaps Hillary will campaign on lowering the eligibility age for Medicare?    

    Parent

    Or, if you really take (3.50 / 2) (#166)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:52:49 PM EST
    this issue seriously, why do you not focus on working for Democratic House candidates (since Boehner will not ever help)?

    Or, you could write the Hillary groups trying to get an early "in" and argue for single payer.

     

    Parent

    I never (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:44:24 AM EST
    said anyone campaigned on single payer. What I did say is that Hillary was going to offer single payer to those who wanted by opening up Medicare.

    Back in 2008 healthcare was one of my main voting issues and so I actually read Obama's entire healthcare proposal. It was a mishmash back then even.

    Parent

    An Affordable Soul Care Act... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:38:26 PM EST
    on stage tonight NYCers...Steve Wynn & The Miracle 3 at Bowery Electric for the low low price of 12 dollars. What a bargain!  

    Come on by and buy me some drinks;)  Steve's got all the Amphetamine you need!

     

    Shots fired at LAX (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    CNN now reporting (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:59:23 PM EST
    TSA agent that was shot is now dead.

    Parent
    Los Angeles-- (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    "All flights to Los Angeles have been stopped after a Transportation Security Administration agent was shot and killed by a fellow agent today at a security checkpoint at Los Angeles International Airport, law enforcement sources have told the Los Angeles Times.

    The Times also is reporting that the suspect, himself a TSA agent, has been killed, and that three or four other TSA employees also were injured in the shooting."

    LINK

    Parent

    Conflicting reports (none / 0) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    some now say shooter wounded, not killed. Some say shooter is not a TSA agent.

    Once again, "getting it out first" is more important than "getting it right."

    Parent

    Paul Ciancia (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    Originally from NJ, now living in LA.

    A ticketed passenger, not a TSA agent, according to this.

    Parent

    NBC News reporter Pete Williams identified the suspect in Friday's LAX shooting, 23-year-old Paul Anthony Ciancia, had "strong anti-government views" based on the literature that he was carrying with him.


    Parent
    Don't tell me: (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    Glenn Beck's The Christmas Sweater.

    Parent
    I was so upset by this, until (none / 0) (#69)
    by Towanda on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:46:52 PM EST
    I remembered that a lovely friend of ours, with connecting flights at LAX, arrived there from Australia not today but yesterday.  Whew.  She is partially disabled, and could not have run with the hundreds seen running in the videos.  Or she could have been run over in that chaos depicted in videos.

    LAX is an unpleasant experience anytime, from our experience.  We've vowed to fly through some other city next time we head across the Pacific Ocean.

    Parent

    Maybe the most amazing point spread (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    I've ever seen in college football:

    The Miami Hurricanes undefeated at 7-0 ranked #7 in the country

    vs

    The Florida State Seminoles undefeated at 7-0 ranked #3 in the country

    FSU -21


    The only "Sure Thing" in gambling (none / 0) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:31:52 PM EST
    The Las Vegas odds makers know a lot more than the folks who determine college rankings.

    The college boys have their reputations on the line; the LV odds makers have millions of dollars on theirs.

    Follow the money.

    Parent

    Keep in mind (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:16:24 PM EST
    Vegas has no interest in picking winners and they don't care who wins. They set their line on how they think the public will wager.

    By getting it as close as possible to encourage gamblers to wager an  equal amount of money on each team, they make it easier for the house to collect the vig without doing much work.

    Thus, a well made betting line splits the "smart money" right down the middle.

    Parent

    Taking it a bit further: (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:47:42 PM EST
    First,

    they determine the line internally, using their different data bases,

    Then,

    they adjust it based on historical betting preferences,

    Then,

    they adjust it further by how the early money is betting,

    And, finally,

    they sell, or, buy disproportionate betting money (to other books) to try and get the final action as close to 50/50 as they can.

    So, you are correct in that the final "line" that's posted does not represent the odds maker's opinion as to the result of the game, but, rather the number they believe will split the betting action down the middle.


    Parent

    Vegas is unreal good (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:18:01 PM EST
    The old saying that only the House wins is very, very true.

    I have run across a couple of guys who get complimentary suites etc., from the big Casinos....They had a big score once and are hooked forever.

    Knew a lawyer at my old firm who left under big mystery cloud.    Always knew the odds on everything....Heard later rumors he played with client money to make up for big loss....One day his office was locked and the internal goons from the home office were running around.  I really liked the guy...

    Parent

    Or the House always wins (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:20:27 PM EST
    FSU (none / 0) (#39)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    beat undefeated University of Maryland 63-0 and beat undefeated Clemson University 51-14.  The U is undefeated but the teams it defeated are not really memorable.  UF is the only ranked team the U defeated and UF is no longer ranked.

    Parent
    Mother Jones Blurb (none / 0) (#50)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:35:33 PM EST
    Different take on polls from
    Mother Jones

    Oh (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:43:58 PM EST
    geez talking a piece to fleece the rubes. They take one paragraph. There are so many tea party districts with a high percentage of republicans that you really can't use averages. I'm sure they used my district and it it's a +29 GOP district.

    Parent
    You should (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:48:08 PM EST
    read "the new american center" where the voters leave the GOP in the dust because their ideas are so antiquated. It's a completely issue based poll. When you read that you will understand why these districts are drawn the way they are.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#97)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:14:56 AM EST
    you should provide a link when you suggest peeps read something.  Most folks are as lazy as I am and will not google a phrase to find a link.

    Parent
    So, too lazy to google a simple phrase (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    But not too lazy to put up a comment whining about someone's failure to accommodate your self-professed laziness; in the time it took to write your comment, you could have had the link.

    Good to know; it explains a lot.

    Parent

    he's all worn out from (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:14:59 AM EST
    pulling himself up by his own bootstraps day-in-day-out..

    Parent
    I wish I could (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Zorba on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    give you a "ten" rating for that comment, jondee.      ;-)

    Parent