home

Monday Afternoon Open Thread

Follow the thread.

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    In a day quite reminiscint.... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by magster on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    of Franken overtaking Coleman, the Dem., Mark Herring in AG's race in Virginia took an election night deficit of almost 1,000 votes into a 115 vote lead today after the recanvassing and double checking of voting machines and spreadsheets. Fun day to follow Dave Wasserman on twitter. And this is even before the provisionals in Dem-heavy Fairfax county are counted.

    Looking good for the Dems.

    The day in Virginia ends (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 09:13:09 PM EST
    with Herring +117. Final tally (prior to the recount) is due tomorrow at 6:00pm. Looks like Herring could gain a few more votes before then as there are still some provisional ballots not included from Fairfax County which is Dem territory.

    Parent
    How a recount would work (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:03:23 AM EST
    Link

    (It's a video)

    Parent

    Unofficial spreadsheet (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 03:06:25 PM EST
    with today's corrections here.

    Parent
    This is not going to (none / 0) (#4)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    be resolved until some time in December.  There will be counts and recounts, and no doubt challenges.
    I certainly hope that Herring winds up the winner.

    Parent
    Better to go into the recount with the lead.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by magster on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 03:54:15 PM EST
    so that the presumptions are in your favor.

    Parent
    Speaking of "in your favor" (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 03:59:24 PM EST
    I love the Hunger Games books and am excited to see the movie part II in a couple of weeks. The preview of Sutherland and Hoffman plotting Ratniss' death was awesome.

    Parent
    New Rule (maybe, maybe not) (none / 0) (#47)
    by ragebot on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    There does not seem to be agreement about this rule being new or not, e.g. that provisional votes can only be counted if the voter is present, a lawyer alone is not sufficient to get the vote counted.  There seems little doubt about the political reason for this.

    Not so sure this is like the Franken recount because this will take forever if as expected it goes to federal court.

    link

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 184 (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    Yes, indeed (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 05:07:25 PM EST
    When we need the military, they are there.  But once they have served their purpose and are no longer "useful" to us, then we forget about them.
    This makes me extremely sad.  We owe the vets a whole lot more than we seem to be willing to give them.   :-(

    Parent
    So true. I saw a very fit youngish African America (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 07:24:25 PM EST
    man dressed in fatigues. He was pushing a grocery cart full of stuff. Pretty pathetic.

    Parent
    this song tells that tale, and makes you weep.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by DFLer on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 09:27:50 PM EST
    I like De Dannan's version, but it's not on the tube. Mary Black will do, very well indeed.

    They Told All the Fine Young Men

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 185 (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    Vol 185... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:35:44 AM EST
    ain't that the f*ckin' truth!

    They got this mustard at my dollar store called "Koops", but much to my surprise it ain't half bad.  Might even be better than Guldens. The dollar store shaving cream, otoh, is little more than a likely lead-based dry shave;)  

    Parent

    no meat, no canned stuff (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:43:10 AM EST
    that was always my limit. usually you'll be good if you follow those two.

    best place on earth to buy cheapass duct-tape and children's toys actually made by children, tho.

    Parent

    Yikes! (none / 0) (#64)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    No children's toys from the dollar store, Dadler. China doesn't seem to have a prohibition against lead based paints.

    Paper goods of all sorts and sundries, but nothing that an child (or animal) will put in his/her mouth.

    IMO

    Parent

    I was joking about the toys (none / 0) (#117)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:13:37 PM EST
    Hence the "made by children." I'd never buy much of anything.

    Parent
    ::whew:: (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:25:18 PM EST
    Good. You scared me :)

    Parent
    Kdog (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:15:07 AM EST
    Get a brush a bowl and a cake of shaving soap.  A bar of shaving soap should last a year.  The bowl and brush should last forever.

    Short of pounding your whiskers in and biting them off inside, this is the lowest cost way to razor shave.

    Parent

    Thanks for the tip... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    Old School...I like it.  Never even dawned on me...guess I'm a child of the over-consumption age, and it's habits are engrained.

    Parent
    Do the Dollar Shave Club (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:27:00 AM EST
    Get their shaving butter, I'm addicted to it. Get the cheapest razors (they work fine) for three bucks a month sent to your house and order the butter as you need it, and basically for less than ten bills a month, on average, you're set with the shaving supplies.

    Parent
    She Should Be Selling Stuff on Ebay... (none / 0) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:26:06 AM EST
    ...that she 'borrowed' from work like people do in the real world.  The color toner cartridges are a couple hundred bucks and no matter how many you order, when they are needed they can never be found.

    Parent
    Them b*tches... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:53:51 AM EST
    are under lock and key at my job...the toner cartridge black market is huuuuge. If the printer runs outta ink and the office manager isn't in, we're sh*t outta luck for printing that day.

    But my outfit did have one ex employee who was helping himself to brand new brass ball valves and selling them for scrap, till he got caught on camera when the inventory kept coming up short.  Idiot....but desperation makes people do some real stupid sh*t.  The boss prosecuted but if I recall correctly he just got probation.

    The worst thing I do is the occasional handful of jumbo paperclips for use as a bong ash poker/resin scraper.

    Parent

    paper clip bong poker (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:29:31 AM EST
    that sh*t is old as the pyramids, i think. way back in the day, I used a shish kabob skewer once. it was like john holmes vs. tinkerbell.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    the wooden skewers work well too...just thin enough, and won't scratch the glass.

    Parent
    Weedmasters (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:50:14 AM EST
    Brought to you by Bic lighters and your local hydroponic supply shop.

    Parent
    LOL... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    And Bambu...don't forget Bambu!Since 1764.

    I always daydreamed that if I made the final table at the WSOP, the only company I would whore for would be Bambu.

    Parent

    Obamacare in worse shape then you think (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:56:41 AM EST
    Can it get worse?

    Yes

    Now this about Fraud from James O'Keefe.

    Drip, drip, drip.

    Good post about what (none / 0) (#35)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:15:38 AM EST
    is facing Obama administration...

    LINK

    Parent

    James O'Keefe (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    of telephone bugging, posing as a pimp (or in his case not posing) at the ACORN office fame?

    Yes I'd like to shooter the slimey, Nixonian dirty trickster messenger. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:23:00 AM EST
    Conservatives are using a hoaxer?

    I guess since so many conservatives fell for the hoaxes around Benghazi that they have found a new "fleece the rubes" operation. I guess it's good money so why not go for it? What do the hoaxers have to lose?

    Parent

    Who counts as an Obamacare "enrollee"? (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:39:54 AM EST
    We are getting a better idea. But of course, trouble is already brewing as the spin begins.

    The fight over how to define the new health law's success is coming down to one question: Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee?

    Health insurance plans only count subscribers as enrolled in a health plan once they've submited a payment. That is when the carrier sends out a member card and begins paying doctor bills.

    When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as  those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.



    In my business (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:30:56 AM EST
    I take promises to the bank too. The bank lets me deposit them and credits my account, the government taxes them, and I deliver based on them.

    Oh. Wait. It's very early out this morning and I haven't had enough coffee yet to think straight.

    I'll get this. I will....

    Parent

    Complete Non-Sense... (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:12:39 AM EST
    ...I get an email every morning from drugstore.com kindly reminding me that I still have items in my basket.

    I was going to seriously stock up on toiletries like 3 years ago because I was going on vacation and I was boycotting Walgreen's.  Turns out after shipping those prices weren't so great, but their inventory is huge so occasionally I go there to see whats available.

    I wonder if GAP and the SEC(if they are public) would allow them to recognize that income before the sale.  Not a chance in hell, yet Obama is counting the items in carts as an actual sale.

    Beyond the legitimacy, that tells me they are in desperate need of numbers, like when Enron started shifting debt off their books,  They did it to make things appear better than they actually are.  

    Same thing Obama is doing, playing games with the numbers to make things appear better than they actually are.
    ---------

    Side Note:
    I do this all the time, use online carts as a reminder of what I need to get.  Occasionally one will send me an email discounting the goods if I checkout that day.  IOW, sometimes you get a better price if you let things sit in a cart for a day or two.  Obama might want to try that, usually motivates me if the discount is decent.

    Parent

    The Republican Party isn't the Tea Party (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:12:04 AM EST
    and "Obamacare" isn't the boon to mankind which was Romneycare. But in case people don't get it, we'll just reiterate the point five or six times a day.

    I can see where a person would get (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:49:01 AM EST
    tired of what seems to be the same conversation every day - I admit to feeling that, and judging by the general dearth of comments lately, others must be feeling it, too.

    That being said, one of the responses to criticism of anything having to do with the ACA is that we're all just talking out of our a$$es because we hate Obama so much.  Explaining that Obama-hate isn't part of the equation doesn't seem to put an end to that as a reason for the negativity.

    Well, I read a post over at naked capitalism this morning that might help expand the conversation:  

    Michael Olenick: Comprehensive Review of ObamaCare Plans Reveals Not Only High Cost for Atrocious Coverage, but Also Apparent Violations of ACA Requirements

    Olenick took the time to go through all of the exchange plans being offered in Florida, input real data, and publish the results.

    There are 132 plans, a relatively large sample size: 38 are bronze, 46 silver, 33 gold, and 15 platinum. Florida Blue offers 76 plans, Ambetter Health has 27 plans, Cigna has 11 plans, Aetna has six plans, Humana offers five plans, Coventry Health offers four plans, and Molina Health has three plans. Sixty-three plans are HMOs, 17 are PPOs, and 52 are EPOs. The average premium is $916.14; the median is about the same at $923.90. The average deductible is $6,581.82 and the median is $6,000. Thus the average plan requires families that actually plan to use healthcare pay $17,575.54 (total monthly premiums plus deductible) before the plan pays much (or anything, depending on the plan); the median is $16,971.38.

    The average out-of-pocket maximum is $10,854.55; the median is $12,500. Finally the maximum paid per year - the price people with conditions like cancer would be expected to pay for their "affordable" care, with premiums, deductibles, and copays (but not balance-billed and other games) - is $21,848.27 per year; the median is $22.415.96.

    The plans carry average premiums by metal level of $759.14, $910.86, $1,019.28, and $1,103.20 for bronze, silver, gold and platinum respectively. Average deductibles are $10,571, $7,209, $3,633, and $1,040 and average out-of-pocket maximum amounts are $12,600, $12,026, $10,115, and $4,467. Total out-of-pocket annual costs for people who rely on the plans - the sick people the ACA was meant to help - are $21,710, $22,956, $22,346, and $17,705 (if you're sick, buy platinum, assuming that you can afford anything).

    Moreover, the overwhelming majority of plans violate what is arguably the most important disclosure requirement in Obamacare, one designed specifically to allow consumers to make "apples to apples" comparisons. Data showing how little the plans actually pay under specific real world scenarios, as required by the ACA, seems to be purposefully omitted from healthcare.gov. The law stipulated that insurers calculate and disclose projected out-of-pocket costs for the delivery of a baby and one year's treatment of well regulated Type II diabetes. These comparisons go the heart of the plans' transparency. However, this data was missing from healthcare.gov for 98 of the 132 plans, available only by burrowing into the plan brochures.

    And this:

    I was encouraged by one of the HMOs, Humana, that looked both affordable and comprehensive until I checked their provider directory. According to the census, my county has 1,356,545 people: 7,540 are children under five years old and 227,666 are under 18 years old. To serve almost a quarter-million youngsters, Humana has nine pediatricians. The American Diabetes Association estimates 8.3% of the population has diabetes, so there would be 112,593 diabetics. To take care of them, the HMO has three endocrinologists, the closest which is 24.7 miles away, each way. There are sixteen different primary care providers, though one is a clinic that has 18 locations. I suspect these clinics are basically HMO staffers who do most of the work. So the only affordable plan is actually Soviet-style rationed medicine, which might be fine but wasn't what the ACA promised.

    I guess I just have one - albeit, multi-part - question: how does something like this make life better for people who either don't have insurance or used to until it was discontinued, how does it improve the system in general and the delivery of actual care, and how does this represent better functionality of a dysfunctional system?

    Okay, one more question: looking at this, how do the obvious flaws get fixed, and does anyone think, really, that Congress is going to step in and do anything?  Anything that makes it better, that is.

    Parent

    I'm fine when you point out flaws (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:59:16 AM EST
    But when they are addressed or fixed, ignoring that and moving onto the next "Obama" flaw (and that is exactly how it is sold around here anymore) and the next and the next turns this place eventually into a mental cesspool.

    Parent
    Maybe you could point out what has been (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:45:50 AM EST
    successfully fixed on ObamaCare using the Florida website and policies research as a guide.

    Parent
    Tricare was (3.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    I didn't post strawman theories either.  I posted what I was dealing with and now it has been repaired but that isn't what you want to hear.  If I remember specifically you went great lengths at one time to insinuate that I wouldn't be suffering like everyone else because Tricare had been originally excluded from the ACA.  But the ACA set a standard and when Tricare insurers tried to abuse military families they were then made to be ACA compliant.

    So....snap judgements and unfounded ACA criticism ruled supreme here, but truth and reality never shows up later down the road.  You just dump that talking point and move onto the next toxic talking point you can find to latch onto.

    Parent

    Actually no (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:05:04 AM EST
    As others have said, it is great that you feel that Tricare is now working better for you.

    The whole country is not on Tricare. As others have pointed out to you numerous times, the discussions on this site have addressed what the average person who is not on Tricare is facing under this legislation They are addressing that issue since that is what they or their family are dealing with. Something you choose to ignore. And you evidently cannot point to even one successful fix in ACA (not Tricare). This is what people not on Tricare are facing:

    The plans carry average premiums by metal level of $759.14, $910.86, $1,019.28, and $1,103.20 for bronze, silver, gold and platinum respectively. Average deductibles are $10,571, $7,209, $3,633, and $1,040 and average out-of-pocket maximum amounts are $12,600, $12,026, $10,115, and $4,467. Total out-of-pocket annual costs for people who rely on the plans - the sick people the ACA was meant to help - are $21,710, $22,956, $22,346, and $17,705 (if you're sick, buy platinum, assuming that you can afford anything).

    If you can afford the "best" (i.e. Gold plan) plan, people who require regular treatment are on the hook for $17,705 for the first year of coverage and god knows how much more each and every year thereafter. After this great and glorious legislation, people here in the U.S. are still paying 2 to 3 times more for health care than in other countries and 35% - 50% more for drugs. Somehow they found a way to leave out the AFFORDABLE part in ACA.

    Now let's address what the military is saying about Tricare and ACA which was the basis of my previous comment.

    Tricare beneficiaries should see little impact from implementation of the Affordable Care Act because the military health care system was excluded from the law and Congress later passed legislation defining Tricare as meeting the act's insurance coverage requirements.

    Per information from military sources, the one change that was made by additional legislation was to provide for TYA allowing children from 21 to age 26 to receive coverage under Tricare. Premiums for this coverage appear to be in the range of $180 - $200 per month.

    One benefit addressed by the PPACA, but not already existing under TRICARE, was coverage of young adults up to age 26. Consequently, the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law in January 2011, led to the speedy implementation of TRICARE Young Adult (TYA.) TYA gives eligible uniformed services dependents under 26 who are unmarried, and not eligible for their own employer-sponsored health care coverage the option to purchase TYA.

    I have yet found anything that disputes that information and would love to see linked information that contradicts those statements. Even without you proving a link, I am willing to take your word that Tricare has improved for you. Once again that is great for you but doesn't do much for anyone else.

    Parent

    A correction is needed (none / 0) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    Got my medals mixed up. Should read:

    If you can afford the "best" (i.e. Platinum plan) plan, people who require regular treatment are on the hook for $17,705 for the first year of coverage and god knows how much more each and every year thereafter.


    Parent
    BTW, since Tricare is excluded by law (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:26:43 AM EST
    from ACA there are several areas where it appears that it still is not compliant with ACA regardless of what you and our Congress state.

    Affordable Care Act: No impact on Tricare, but some coverage isn't equal

    Parent

    Whatever was "repaired" (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    Was not repaired via Obamacare.  Obamacare deliberately did not touch Tricare.

    It doesn't matter how often people tell you this, you don't believe it.  

    It's time to start believing it.

    Parent

    Kind of (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:00:57 AM EST
    the crux of the problem is even if Obamacare was good legislation I'm guessing nobody in Washington DC is actually going to make them follow the regulations which comes as no surprise to me.

    Parent
    I don't believe that for a minute (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:11:42 AM EST
    I expect insurance companies to initially attempt to violate the law, and then get into hot water.  Look, they slapped Tricare right down when they thought they would pull things.  This legislation is what Dems are responsible for.  Why would they simply allow insurers to break the law and destroy any good that can come of ACA?

    Parent
    They let banksters... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    lie, cheat, & steal...why would it be any different for insurance co's?  And the reason is the kickbacks to the re-election fund.

    Parent
    I don't think the moneyed outweigh (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    The angry voter in this equation kdog.  That is our biggest win, we are all invested now to some degree, it isn't about playing the lucky in health against the unlucky anymore.  We now have more voice, we aren't divided standing against each other because we are in the same boat.

    Parent
    Dollars talk, voices walk... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    The angry voter?  Like we're reminded by our fine hostess every election season, where we gonna go with our votes?  We fall in line and vote for kinder, gentler grift.  (Or y'all do, me and maybe three other people voted for Jill Stein and other also-rans in congressional races.)

    Maybe if we put our arses where our anger is, but nobody is interested in a general insurance premium strike...that might do the trick, but has risks, especially for people like you who depend on the healthcare sh*tstem as a course of everyday life.

    Parent

    Yeah, If Politicians Weren't Beholden... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    ...to the Big Insurance we would all have had single-payer long ago.  Pretending they are going to get tough with an industry that basically wrote the ACA is hilarious in like 5 levels.

    Parent
    So you think some kind of single payer (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    Legislation wouldn't have been found unconstitutional by the Roberts court?

    Like I already said, I didn't get everything I wanted but I got things I desperately needed.  And to think you could have won this war with Obama doing what you wanted him to do is another form of naive.

    Parent

    No, What I said Was... (none / 0) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 01:40:10 PM EST
    If politicians weren't beholden to the Big Insurance we would all have had single-payer long ago.

    So it would  have been established law by the time Roberts got his JD. Maybe Rehnquist's, but more likely Burger's court, but that is assuming back a decade or four there would be some version of the Tea Party to make a ridiculous stink about legislation that would have been beneficial to every single American.

    Parent

    And you don't think taking on the (none / 0) (#78)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 02:23:32 PM EST
    constitutionality of a single-payer health system would put Medicare, Medicaid and the VA Health System at risk?  Those are all single-payer systems.

    I would venture to guess that if those single-payer programs were imperiled by the possibility that a new single-payer system would be found unconstitutional, there isn't a chance in hell it would EVER get that far.

    Parent

    Jill Stein (1.50 / 4) (#144)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:10:32 PM EST
    received 456169 votes in total or 0.36% of votes. Given the number of people here who said that they voted for Jill Stein, it is clear that her support here overstates her general support (or lack of it) in the whole country, despite your swipe at our fine hostess. Our hostess was not telling people outside this blog not to vote for Jill Stein.

    Jill Stein voters also think like 1 percenters. These 0.36 percenters think that they know everything better than the 99.64%.

    Parent

    You obviously do not understand (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 01:03:41 AM EST
    the Jill Stein vote or voters.

    Parent
    By Olenick's account, the law is already (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 12:52:47 PM EST
    being violated (bold is mine).

    Moreover, the overwhelming majority of plans violate what is arguably the most important disclosure requirement in Obamacare, one designed specifically to allow consumers to make "apples to apples" comparisons. Data showing how little the plans actually pay under specific real world scenarios, as required by the ACA, seems to be purposefully omitted from healthcare.gov. The law stipulated that insurers calculate and disclose projected out-of-pocket costs for the delivery of a baby and one year's treatment of well regulated Type II diabetes. These comparisons go the heart of the plans' transparency. However, this data was missing from healthcare.gov for 98 of the 132 plans, available only by burrowing into the plan brochures.

    Even for the 34 plans that disclosed the data on healthcare.gov it was, seemingly by design, a hassle to view, requiring an extra click. All four of the seven largest insurance companies failed entirely to provide this information. This field reads "No data" for every plan from Humana, Aetna, Cigna, and Florida Blue (Blue Cross). It's hard to believe that this is a technical glitch - the information shows up just fine for the small insurers that uploaded it.

    [snip]

    Healthy baby delivery is projected to cost $7,540 in my area. Bronze plans, which are supposed to pay 60% of out-of-pocket healthcare expenses, cover only 27% leaving families to pay $5,516 of $7,540. Silver, gold, and platinum plans are supposed to pay 60%, 80%, and 90% respectively but pay 47%, 64%, and 85%.

    Type II diabetes is projected to cost $5,400 per year to treat. Plans pay 47%, 62%, 78%, and 94% on average, for bronze, silver, gold, and platinum, of the cost. Although the bronze plans average better for diabetes seven bronze plans pay less than $100 towards the $5,400 yearly expense.

    Using this relatively large real-world sample we see there is only one category - Type II diabetes insured by a platinum plan - that is projected to pay out at the mandatory actuarial level. At 27% bronze plan payouts for routine births are abysmal, especially considering deliveries are one of the primary conditions the subsidized bronze plans should cover. If a family put aside $500 per month they'd leave the hospital with a $1,540 bill. Instead, by buying insurance, they start out with a $5,516 bill. Maternity coverage is not useful if it never pays.

    Whose job was it to make sure the required information was uploaded from these companies?  Is there a compliance group of some sort to whom these kinds of violations should have been reported?  

    And are the omissions with respect to plans being offered via the website in Florida being repeated with respect to other states with these same insurers?  

    What is being done about it?

    And how, in the name of the god of your choice, are these costs considered "affordable?"  How deceptive is it to claim a 60%, 80% or 90% "coverage" when it's clear that that's not where the numbers are going to come in?

    At what point is this considered deceptive advertising, and how many people are going to get stuck with the bills?

    Isn't deception what one engages in when one doesn't want anyone to know the truth?


    Parent

    So let me understand (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    I don't like Auburn so no one can say the score was like  55 - 21..

    lol

    Parent

    As (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:56:14 AM EST
    seen in the debt ceiling the GOP is either too afraid of them to cross them or controlled by them. So while technically the GOP and the tea party may not be the same we have seen who is calling the shots so far.  

    Parent
    For me (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 01:09:59 PM EST
    Obamacare is a daily nightmare.  I live it.  I have to deal with it on Jan 1, 2014 and every day from that point until it changes.  It is torture, harassment by my government.  I waffle between dark depression and beyond furious anger and everything in between.

    If it's not a nightmare for you, well then, bully for you.

    You can forget it.  20% of the population of this country cannot.  If people can manage to get subsidies to make insurance affordable, they are going to endure issues like subsidy hell, subsidy repayment.  And a larger percentage will be on the hook once the Employer Mandate takes effect and people start getting dumped off of employer provided insurance.

    Again, if it's not an issue for you, my suggestion is don't read.  I know facing this reality is torture.  Just move on to other threads.

    Parent

    This is an open thread (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    You have the ability to start discussions on any and all subjects that interest you. I see even with discussions on the Tea Party and ObamaCare you have been able to participated in discussions on other subjects that interest you even to the point of getting into the usual disagreements with  jimakaPPJ.

    It stands to reason that not every subject will interest everyone that reads the open threads. What bores you, including the predictable  disagreements, may interest me and what interests you, including the predictable disagreements,  may bore me.

    There is always the option of not reading posts that don't interest you.

    Parent

    At least some of us (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:04:11 AM EST
    Are trying to discuss serious and substantive matters, as opposed to making asinine comments like yours. Apparently you are so comfy in your life, with excellent health care options, and none of this affects you. Some of us are not so lucky, so excuse us if we find this topic to be of utmost importance and are upset at the complete cluster this has been from the beginning (which was also predictable).

    When even liberal Oregon is having huge problems with this - they haven't enrolled a single person yet - then you know it's bad.

    Parent

    True but misleading (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:25:13 AM EST
    Oregon runs their own website but according to your article hasn't launched it yet. Therefore they have signed up no one for healthcare through the Cover Oregon website.

    On the upside, their proactive attempt at getting medicaid patients enrolled so the less well off have doctors they can visit lowered the uninsured rate in Oregon by 10% in just 2 weeks by signing up 56,000 individuals for Medicaid under the new ACA rules.

    Parent

    No, you're right (4.00 / 3) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    They haven't launched the site because 6 weeks after the October 1 deadline for starting enrollments, the site doesn't actually work.

    People have had decent plans dumped, premiums have ballooned to extreme unaffordability.  People can't buy plans that aren't on the Exchanges if they need subsidies to afford the exorbitant premiums.  They have no way to even find out what subsidies they get for the limited doctor network crap Exchange plans because the Oregon site is still broken.

    And if they want to be insured on January 1, they need to be enrolled by December 15.  

    Medicaid enrollees can enroll separately.  That's a good thing no doubt.  If Medicaid expansion had been the only mandate in Obamacare, I think people on this board would be cheering right now.  I know I would be, although with caveat that Medicaid really isn't health care.  It's better than nothing.

    Spin it any way you like.  The site hasn't launched yet! (LOL). But saying, "see, Medicaid!" is absolutely no consolation for people who have been devastated by this awful policy.  Like me.

     

    Parent

    Who's spinning? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:00:46 PM EST
    Other than you? I'm just giving basic facts about medicaid enrollment in Oregon under the ACA. It's good for those now eligible in Oregon and all the other states that accepted Medicaid expansion under the ACA also.

    Parent
    Not changing the deadline is outrageous (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    In fact, it strikes me as fraud that the deadline has not been moved back by at least eight weeks.

    Parent
    They already extended to March 31 for purchase (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 02:42:58 PM EST
    With a May 1, 2014 start date.

    Parent
    The main problem with moving back the (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 02:50:45 PM EST
    deadline is once again the insurance industry and how an extension would affect the insurance pool and 2015 pricing.

    Here's why an enrollment extension could be bad for Democrats in the midterm elections. Insurers insist that an extension would skew their risk pools toward older, sicker people and force them to hike premiums for 2015 to make up for it -- and outside experts back them up on the actuarial risks. If that happened, the increased premium rates would likely be released some time in September -- October at the latest -- according to the guidance that the Obama administration has given to insurers. link

    Based on my experience, I would have to agree with the insurance industry and the outside experts on the actuarial risks. It would only IMO give the industry a built in excuse to raise the prices sky high. When people talk about being between a rock and a hard place, this would be a perfect example.

    Parent

    Here is a balanced researched comment (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:27:50 AM EST
    No, everything in Oregon isn't perfect, but helping the citizens of the state is in the works, the process is beginning.

    Parent
    As has been pointed endlessly (none / 0) (#56)
    by ragebot on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:53:38 AM EST
    there is a difference between health care insurance and health care.  Medicaid is to some extent health care insurance.  The problem is that lots of doctors and hospitals do not accept Medicaid, or delay treatment for those using Medicaid.

    The example of a very understaffed and limited network for coverage in Florida is more the rule than the exception.

    The lower insurance costs in Oregon may well be offset by higher taxes to cover the Medicaid patients.  Another problem with any insurance rate is that while insurance companies are required to spend 80% (+ or - 3%) of revenue on health care and rebate the rest the converse is also true.  If the insurance rate turns out to be too low the govt will eat the mistake and pay the insurance company to get to the 80%.  So the insurance companies do have profits limited, but they also have losses prohibited.  

    Parent

    You might want to read some history (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    From last month:

    PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A month after Oregon's problem-plagued online health insurance marketplace has failed to enroll a single person, concerns are mounting that some of the most vulnerable Oregonians may face a break in coverage if they don't enroll within the next month and a half.

    To date, the state has received just 4,260 paper applications as part of the national health care overhaul law, and the Cover Oregon website still can't tell people what subsidies they are eligible to receive.

    Though Cover Oregon officials say they're working to resolve the problems, they declined to name a date when they expect the website will be functional and they could not explain how they plan to enroll thousands of people within a short time span. Oregon has an estimated 600,000 uninsured, though officials say about 200,000 are expected to sign up through 2014.

    The situation is most dire for about 11,000 Oregonians who are part of the state's high-risk insurance pool -- a program for those rejected by private insurance carriers because of pre-existing conditions such as cancer, diabetes, or severe heart conditions.

    These sickest of residents will see the state's insurance pool dissolve by year's end, because denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions is no longer allowed under the Affordable Care Act.

    If they don't meet a Dec. 15 deadline to enroll, they will find themselves without health insurance on Jan. 1.

    And the problems still aren't fixed, which is why they have ZERO people signed up.

    Parent

    Of course you left out the quote (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    by the one person mentioned in the article that won't be covered come January 1.

    Lake Oswego resident Cynthia Johnson, 57, a breast cancer survivor who also has chronic fatigue syndrome...

    said she hasn't filled out an application yet, because she's waiting until Cover Oregon's online glitches are fixed.

    "It's exciting to be able to finally get insurance," Johnson said. "I have faith that Cover Oregon will figure out how to enroll us."

    Classy lady that counts her blessings rather than defaulting to mopey whiny. TL could use more like her.

    Parent

    That classy lady (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:12:30 PM EST
    has a serious medical condition. And your own excerpt indicates that she has still not signed up. All you have highlighted is that she has a great deal at risk.

    And if the squeaky wheels didn't keep squeaking, I'm not sure there would be such urgency to correct the problem.

    They'd just assess the penalty and call it a day.

    Parent

    And even without enrolling yet (none / 0) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    the breast cancer survivor is very happy with what will be available for her under the ACA.

    A shame more people don't have her silver lining outlook.

    Parent

    Oh, for crying out loud (4.00 / 4) (#107)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    And even without enrolling yet (none / 0) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:18:46 PM MDT

    the breast cancer survivor is very happy with what will be available for her under the ACA.

    I'm really happy with what mega millions will do for me, but I haven't won it yet.

    When the law goes into effect, find her again, with full access to the care she needs and I will be really glad.

    This would be a great counter-balance to the worries that have been expressed here if she actually had the insurance and knew exactly what it covered.

    Right now all she has are expectations.

    Parent

    Apparently PK just woke up (3.67 / 3) (#139)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:56:43 PM EST
    and is doing her blindly/maliciously-downrating-comments-for-certain-commenters thing.

    Just a hint PK. If you go directly to the users comment page you can downrate from there while not reading or understanding the comments. Rather than scrolling through threads not reading or understand the comments. It might be a little faster.

    Parent

    There you go, Politalkix (3.00 / 2) (#140)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:06:40 PM EST
    See how easy that is to do en masse downrating? I bet that saves you a bunch of time.

    Parent
    Politalkix is a spoiled brat (3.00 / 2) (#145)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:49:40 PM EST
    who never learned to get along well with others. Isn't that obvious by now? My next door neighbor's 6-year old daughter is more of an adult than PK, any day of the week.

    Parent
    I have expectations too (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:34:30 PM EST
    and they're all good. Guess I don't share your doomsday attitude.

    Parent
    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:50:03 PM EST
    For crying out loud. When did being cautious and observant and analytical become a "doomsday attitude"?

    I guess I just don't share your happily oblivious Pollyanna attitude. Nor does it have much credibility coming from someone who will be signing up for insurance for the first time. Maybe. By March 31. Because it's for the greater good.

    Parent

    Or I might not. (none / 0) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:00:43 PM EST
    The prices in Florida for me are excellent, but I'm also a pure profit godsend for insurance companies should I sign up.

    Parent
    This does not surprise me in the least. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    Or I might not. (none / 0) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:00:43 PM MDT

    The prices in Florida for me are excellent, but I'm also a pure profit godsend for insurance companies should I sign up.

    In fact, it would be typical of you to go up and down the thread scolding and making accusations when you have absolutely no dog in the hunt. By your own admission you won't be affected (because you may -- or may not -- sign up for insurance. By March 31) but you're optimistic, while many of those who are affected have a "doomsday attitude".

    Morally dishonest, IMO.

    Parent

    Morally dishonest? (none / 0) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    I'm one of the few here that has filled out all the forms, talked to the navigators, found all my plans and prices, and know exactly where I stand.

    You on the other hand are just spouting your daily the sky is falling BS.

    For the record, I couldn't sign up now anyway. They want my 2013 tax return to verify any potential subsidy. Quite fair when you consider my loss of income over the last two years.

    Parent

    All well and good (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:01:40 PM EST
    But by your own admission, you have preferred not to have insurance lo these many years and will be signing up for the first time. Maybe.

    All while you scold some of those who really need help medically. So yes. Morally dishonest.

    You on the other hand are just spouting your daily the sky is falling BS.
    You are also reading comprehension challenged. I have said all along that I won't be affected personally (at this time) because I will initially have employer based insurance. That gives me some time to see how it shakes out.

    Since I don't have dog in the hunt I can take the time to actually read what other people are saying about their experiences (because watch what they do, not what they say). Including you. And so far you don't have any personal experience to offer when it comes to weighing what other people say. So you judge it instead.

    All I have in this is a bit of a professional interest in how they managed to screw up the website six ways from Sunday. And as my own professional deadline approaches, that bit of curiosity wanes.

    But upon reflection even if you were right (which you are not) I'd much rather spout "sky is falling BS" and be wrong, than cover my ears and spout "la la la I can't hear you BS" and be wrong.

    Parent

    Hey, pal (3.67 / 3) (#127)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    I've lost a whole lotta of income in the last two years too.  Yet, my plan is being canceled, even though (depsite WH talking points) it is NOT a "junk plan".  So, I get the great privilege of paying MORE if I want to maintain a similar (albeit, really a bit less, or closer to "junk" than I currently have) plan.  So, sorry if you think I'm whining, but it's hard to be as Pollyanna-ish as you, especially when many of us saw this coming four years ago as the cheerleaders tried to shame and silence people who dared to question Dear Leader's awesomeness.

    So you'll just have to understand why I can't work up a big RAH-RAH for this complete mess.

    Parent

    Are you an expert on Washington State as well? (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:02:22 PM EST
    I don't think you have all the facts on what's happened in Oregon, but the facts wouldn't fit your narrative anyway, now would they? La la la lala, everything's hunky dory with the ACA.......

    In Washington State (where you are probably also an expert on the health care plans), about 8,000 people who registered for the exchange were erroneously given the wrong information on their upcoming tax credit...to an average of $100 per person. And not $100 in their favor. They will have to pay more for their groovy plans than they were first told when they signed up.

    Yeah, it's all hunky dory, dontcha know.

    Parent

    Not to worry (none / 0) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:21:25 PM EST
    The Dems can always find a way to make things worse when Republicans start to say mean things to them.

    Parent
    Is there any doubt that Clinton is all about (none / 0) (#149)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:29:22 PM EST
    Clinton?

    Parent
    In this case, (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 06:35:28 AM EST
    Bill Clinton has the luxury of not only spouting good politics, but good policy as well.

    Parent
    Sorry don't agree (none / 0) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:09:15 AM EST
    As much as I dislike the insurance legislation that was passed, reinstating the canceled policies would be very bad policy as indicated in the linked article. I know you like your policy but there are very valid reasons for not having them reinstated. Please read the entire article. If you think this whole thing is a mess now, it is small change compared to what it would be like in 2015 if they take Clinton's advise.

    Parent
    I think they should be reinstated (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:20:13 AM EST
    For one year - until they can fix this mess.

    They can focus on the people that have no insurance and get them settled. Then next year, they can cancel the policies - by that time, we can all see how this settles out, the inusrance companies will have their 2015 rates set, people can plan and shop around, and it takes that many more people out of the system to be processed.

    And considering the site most likely won't be fixed by the self-imposed deadline of November 30, that would be a big relief.

    Parent

    Sorry still disagree (none / 0) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:35:19 AM EST
    The government would have to pay out a lot more to the insurance companies for a shortfall in 2014 and the rates in 2015 would be based on a pool comprised of older sicker people.

    The one year extension (even if possible) would create a long term hardship for a short term gain.

    Parent

    Surprise...and (almost) agreement (none / 0) (#188)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:06:30 PM EST
    The more that I read & hear about the Senator Landrieu/Senator Merkley straightforward fix, the more sense it makes.  As I understand that proposal: Those with existing non-complying insurance policies would have the option of retaining said policies and the relevant insurance companies would be required to honor/extend the policies for as long as the insurer is in that market and insured pays the premiums.

    The Landrieu approach could accomplish several things in that the effected market would appear to be a very small percentage of the overall program (i.e., a fraction of the 4 percent that have received the controversial notices about non-extension or cancellation of existing non-compliant policies) so as to be manageable in the broader scope of the ACA.  It provides an immediate "remedy" for even the percentage of people who have felt aggrieved.  It actually allows Congress and the WH to address an issue together, which resolution will allow the country to move forward in a pro-active way ... in a way that would add more people to the pool of "winners" under the ACA, thereby resolving what could have been a continuing ugly "we" v. "them"  health care reform context in this country.  

    The Landrieu measure looks like a decent compromise.

    Parent

    Care to point to something you've (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:36:18 PM EST
    actually read that leads you to suggest this is a workable compromise?  And I don't just mean that "it sounds good," but that the underlying mechanics and actuarial calculations and assumptions are workable, as well.

    Because the article MOBlue linked to, and others I've seen, do not support your contention.

    I am often wary of any solution that starts off with "well, you can just..." because most of the time, it is never a matter of "just" anything.

    Even, for example, expanding Medicare to younger ages, would be more than "just" opening it up.  Most Medicare premiums are paid via deductions from Social Security, so there would need to be a structure to accommodate premium payments by those not yet old enough to be receiving Social Security.  And what happens if someone doesn't pay a premium?  What happens then?  Is it like a credit card that gets declined - you know, you present your Medicare card at the doctor's office, they run it through the computer and tell you, "sorry, but your card has been declined.  How would you like to pay for today's services?"

    But, getting back to what you've been reading and hearing, I think I can speak for more than a few people when I say I would be most interested in your providing links to these things you've read is that lead you to believe Landrieu's plan is workable.

    Parent

    No real surprise (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 03:08:25 PM EST
    According to your philosophy any deal is a good deal even when it isn't. Gotta love those compromises even if they turn a fcked up process into a something where chaos reigns supreme.

    Parent
    Almost forgot (none / 0) (#191)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:12:03 PM EST
    The measure would also require the insurer to notify, annually, that the existing policy is ACA non-compliant and that the insured has the option of selecting there or on the Exchange a compliant policy at new rates.  Good disclosure provision.

    Parent
    We have insurance (3.50 / 2) (#51)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:38:35 AM EST
    because of Obamacare right now.  We have PCIP coverage that will expire December 31, 2013.  We will need to enroll in another plan by year's end.

    Without Obamacare, we have zero insurance because of a pre-existing condition. So, it is not an academic exercise for us.

    Your solution?  Tort reform and allowing plans to be sold across state borders??  Just hollow unsupported rhetoric.

    Parent

    Have you figured out (3.50 / 2) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 12:40:00 PM EST
    who your doctors are going to be yet?  Are you actually going to be able to access them if you have issues -- or are they going to be more like the ones in Florida?

    No, the problem is real.  The solution is not forcing everyone into what amounts to expensive Medicaid or jacking their premiums so much that they're forced out of the market.

    Parent

    Since we have not yet (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    enrolled, I do not know about doctors.   Under PCIP, we have qualified doctors.  I assume that will be the case when we enroll in the new program.

    The key here is that without Obamacare, we do not have access to any doctors at all.

    Parent

    Everyone has access as long as they (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    can pay, but in this country, we apparently want to stick with the model of paying private insurance companies a lot of money so they can then have more control over our access to care.

    Ultimately, the providers probably get less money, clearly the subscriber has less because he or she is giving so much of it to the insurance company as well as to the providers in the form of co-pays and co-insurance (and soon to come: balance billing!), so guess who gets most of it?  Yeah, funny how this works.

    And I hope you're right, that you do have qualified providers from which to choose, but at this stage, I wouldn't assume anything.

    Parent

    You seem to be missing the point (none / 0) (#109)
    by ragebot on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:45:36 PM EST
    There is a difference between health care insurance and health care.  The blurb about the number of folks covered and the number of doctors to cover them in Florida illustrates how bad the shortage is.  These problems existed before Obamacare and will just get worse as time passes.

    Parent
    Doctors don't even know (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:55:57 AM EST
    Everyone has problems (1.50 / 2) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:17:37 AM EST
    It is the lack of resolution that is destructive.  And when this administration resolves anything it is never acknowledged around here.  That's against the unspoken rules here and violates the unspoken mission of spending all day every day making Obama look as horrible as possible.

    He ended one war, and the second is drawing to a close.  What a relief in my life.  And I know, you are all happy I have experienced this individual measure of relief :)

    Parent

    Obama hate? (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by the capstan on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:56:54 AM EST
    I have spent several years here reading about the reasons we needed to vote for Obama.  (I sat out one election and let TL scare me into voting for him in the second.)  

    i understand your reasons.  I have an adult 'special needs' daughter whom we managed to raise despite official ignorance.  Even now I have to be on guard against physicians who blindly try to apply adult female guidelines to a child-size 'woman' of 56 with Down's syndrome (and no Alzheimer's, statistics not withstanding).

    My question is: what happened to all those Obama rooters?  Are they haters or are they just plain disappointed in the result?

    Parent

    So, John Kerry says... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:04:34 AM EST
    ...that NSA spying is ok because Obama is clueless, and they're not as mad about it as they would be if Obama had a clue?

    The Guardian this morning

    World leaders have been understanding about leaked revelations that the US spied on them as they know it was not all done under the orders of Barack Obama, the US secretary of state has said.

    In an interview with the BBC, John Kerry said foreign governments understood the president did not personally authorise all the surveillance, which included tapping the mobile phone of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

    Why does Kerry hate Obama? Who appointed this guy to State anyway? Sheesh.

    Taking the temparature here.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by magster on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:04:47 AM EST
    Who would you prefer for president in 2016, Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton?

    Is there some reason those are the (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:30:19 PM EST
    only choices?

    Both women have a lot to offer, but I would like to see Warren stay in the Senate where she can be one of the few loud voices speaking on behalf of the forgotten people - the increasingly beleaguered middle class, the unemployed, those struggling with debt - and doing yeoman's work trying to keep the financial industry accountable.

    As for Clinton, we could use a strong voice speaking on behalf of women and children, something that she could perhaps be more effective at from a position like Secretary of HHS.  She is not liberal enough for me and is way too authoritarian on issues of privacy rights, domestic spying, law and order.  I want someone who hasn't bought into the deficit hysteria, and all that goes with it.  

    So, I guess that means I don't want either woman to be president.  Maybe Warren would be ready in 4 years or 8, but I think she is better utilized on issues that matter to me from within the Senate.  And Clinton?  There isn't anyone who works harder, but I just can't get excited about her.

    Parent

    Gosh, why can't you just get with the program (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:41:00 PM EST
    Don't you know that you shouldn't be asking questions? Don't you realize that every time you delve into intelligent political analysis you antagonize the loyal-true-blue-Democrats??? It's not about finding candidates with integrity, or candidates with new ideas, Anne. It's about winning. Try to remember that.

    >:)

    Parent

    Oops... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    I also forgot that with some people, one cannot pose questions unless prepared to provide answers.

    Hundreds of millions of people in this country, and the same handful of names comes up every 4 years.

    I guess I'm just not that excited about electing someone who's happy to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs in exchange for a short speech.  And I'm sure there will be more where that came from.  Do I begrudge her the right to do it?  No, but I don't think it says much for her credibility on issues of poverty, income inequality, food insecurity, and unemployment that someone in her extremely comfortable financial position doesn't feel she has a message she can deliver free of charge.

    Damn...there I go again.

    Parent

    Hater.... :-)! (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by vml68 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    Wasn't she doing speeches (none / 0) (#141)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    at colleges and such in the same time period? We only seem to hear about her GS speaking fee . . .  

    I think her actions on poverty, women, etc should be balanced with her speaking fees. Is she walking the walk on those issues, or only giving them lip service while riding high on a GS speaking fee?

    Parent

    Here's some of what she's been doing (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 06:47:56 AM EST
    Not as well publicized.

    CHICAGO -- Whether she runs for president or not in 2016, Hillary Rodham Clinton is making sure she stays connected to important Democratic constituencies, from college students and black women to the gay and lesbian community.

    Clinton has spoken to a women's institute in Pennsylvania, a prominent black women's sorority in the nation's capital, the American Jewish University in Los Angeles and an organization called Chicago House that helps people with HIV and AIDS.

    Her fall itinerary includes speeches before college students at three universities in New York, which she represented in the Senate, an award from the Elton John AIDS Foundation, a speech at a Minneapolis synagogue and an event involving a Mexican-American initiative at the University of Southern California.

    SNIP

    Clinton's advisers note that she has avoided the circuit of Democratic dinners and events in early voting states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, and focused on issues about which she long has been passionate - the status of women and girls around the globe, early childhood education and the trafficking of wildlife in Africa.

    She is expected to limit her in-person political activity this year to fundraisers and events for Terry McAuliffe, a friend who's running for Virginia governor.

    And yes, she's playing politics - she's a politician. I don't fall in love with politicians, so this kind of stuff isn't a problem for me.  I want someone who is willing and able to do the job. Others may disagree.

    Clinton's travels also help burnish her centrist credentials. During a June address at the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Mich., she talked about the characteristics of leadership and sat next to Richard and Helen DeVos, both longtime Republican financial donors and activists. Her private, paid speeches have put her before industry groups that represent financial interests, housing developers and the tourist industry.

    Earlier this month, Clinton received the Liberty Medal from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. The group's chairman, former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Fla., credited Clinton's "lifelong career in public service." Famous friends and supporters, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and tennis star Billie Jean King, praised her in video testimonials.

    Her childhood development initiative with the Clinton Foundation, called Too Small to Fail, features a leadership council that includes former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Cindy McCain, the wife of Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.

    She's also writing a book.

    Hillary Clinton is writing a book, due out next spring, about her time as the nation's top diplomat, and will discuss her work on health and economic issues related to women and children during this coming week's Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York.

    So, it's not just Goldman Sachs speeches....

    Parent

    No, there's been lots lots more: (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:21:10 AM EST
    In the six months since stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton has addressed apartment-complex developers in Dallas, private-equity managers in Los Angeles and business executives in Grand Rapids, Mich. Still to come are travel agents, real estate brokers, clinical pathologists and car dealers -- collecting more than $200,000 per appearance, according to one executive who arranges speaking tours.

    This is how Clinton is cashing in on her star power as she weighs whether to run for the White House. The would-be Democratic front-runner is barnstorming the country, delivering speeches and answering questions at events sponsored by industry groups eager to gain access to someone who may be the next president.

    [snip]

    Clinton is the only leading 2016 contender giving paid speeches, with at least 14 delivered or scheduled so far, in part because ethics rules prohibit sitting lawmakers from doing so. Past presidential contenders, such as Republicans Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, gave relatively few such addresses, and for much lower five-figure fees.

    And that article was in July, four months ago, and doesn't include the 2 speeches for Goldman.

    Look, I don't begrudge her the right to make a living, and I'm sure she has a lot of interesting things to say, but here's another interesting development: she's banning the media from coverage of the speeches:

    Clinton's moves to bar mainstream and social media coverage at major speeches in three cities, including one in San Francisco this weekend, are drawing attention and criticism that could have ripple effects all the way to 2016, experts say.

    [snip]

    The Democratic bastion of San Francisco is just the latest in a list of cities where Clinton's team has locked out the media.

    At a recent Miami appearance before thousands of travel agents, not only were reporters banned, but attendees were ordered not to take photos or video of Clinton's speech. One convention-goer told the Washington Post that a security guard confiscated his cell phone after he took photos to show to his children.

    Reporters were also barred from covering Clinton's speech Oct. 15 in Atlanta at the National Association of Convenience Stores convention, forcing the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to piece together accounts of her address from people who were there. By their telling, Clinton did indeed make news, saying potential 2016 opponent Vice President Joe Biden had opposed the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden, while she had been among its strongest proponents.

    I'm no fan of the media, and maybe it doesn't make a difference if the media is present, versus forcing them to piece together a story.  And maybe the theory is that when a group is paying $200,000 for a speech (plus travel and other expenses as negotiated), the media doesn't have a right to report on a private event.  But confiscating cell phones?  Really?

    I just think the combination of high-priced speeches to trade and industry groups with a media blackout, doesn't look or feel right.  

    Parent

    Transparent (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:27:09 AM EST
    "the combination of high-priced speeches to trade and industry groups with a media blackout" makes her just as transparent as obama.

    Parent
    The man who had his phone confiscated (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:36:30 AM EST
    Wasn't part of the media.

    The other side of the story.

    Who's truth is real?  I don't know.  Even the guy whose phone was taken didn't think it was a big deal.

    But the thing to remember, that keeps getting glossed over in these articles, is that she is not a candidate. (Even though the article you link to has people quoted who refer to her as such).

    If she becomes a candidate, then these kinds of things are much more important.

    Parent

    Oh, I'm aware that she isn't a candidate, (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:57:31 AM EST
    and I have faith that regardless of whether she decides to run or not, the media will spin it whichever way works best for whichever way the wind seems to be blowing.  If the media decide Hillary can finally be the "It" Girl, it will all get swept under the rug; if they once again decide to make Hillary-bashing a blood sport, it will be all we hear about, and not in a good way.

    I'm already sick of the 2016 campaign...

    And Bill Clinton; what's the deal with him?  No, wait - nevermind - I don't really want to know.  Saw him make the news last night, opining that Obama should let people keep their health insurance if they like it.  Which, if this gets any serious traction, will result in the end of everything but the expansion of Medicaid - because if the insurance companies don't get enough young, healthy people into the kinds of policies that can make them money, this house of cards won't stand.


    Parent

    I can (none / 0) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:34:38 PM EST
    and hope to vote for her a few more times.

    Parent
    The "bots" will be among Hillary's (none / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:27:47 AM EST
    biggest supporters.  Who'da thunk it?

    Parent
    Guess we will have to see if that is true (none / 0) (#167)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:42:52 AM EST
    Bill is presently making life more difficult for Obama. I don't for a minute doubt that there will be more times this will occur between now and the end of Obama's term.

    Those in love with the person of Obama rather than just wanting a win regardless of policy might not like Bill putting Obama behind the 8 ball.  


    Parent

    Bill said what Obama already (none / 0) (#168)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:43:26 AM EST
    said.

    Parent
    Suggestions, Anne? (none / 0) (#92)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:38:26 PM EST
    If she runs, and there's no one else I (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:46:54 PM EST
    think better, I will likely vote for Jill Stein again.

    Parent
    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    a Senator Warren isn't ready yet, but never reached the level of small town mayor Jill Stein is ready. Interesting.


    Parent
    I guess I spoke out of both sides of my (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    mouth a bit, but I think if you read what I wrote again, you'll see there is more emphasis on my feeling that her voice is better utilized in the Senate than in making a run for president in 2016.

    I don't know if you've looked at Jill Stein's positions on the issues, and perhaps you will scoff at the tilting-at-windmills impossibility of accomplishing even a quarter of what she's proposed, but I'd like a candidate who can deliver these kinds of messages, get us talking about the poor, about the fact that the economy isn't working for an awful lot of people, make the case for being a country that lives up to the ideals it says it believes in.

    So, in terms of "readiness," you're right that Stein has no major legislative or governing experience, but the people she's surrounded herself with, the people whose knowledge and expertise she's called on are of the people, by the people and for the people in a way that could make a difference.

    It's not that I don't "like" Clinton, or that I don't have a great deal of admiration and respect for her body of work; I just think she's as bought-and-paid for as anyone, and I'm done with that.

    As for the Clinton Global Initiative, it isn't that they don't do good work, but it's kind of a cesspool of insider, mutual back-scratching that just makes me feel a little ill.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:41:23 PM EST
    I don't agree, but appreciate the clarification.

    Parent
    I can't speak for Anne (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:21:28 PM EST
    but I want to see the "marathon". Absolutely no offence to Warren. None. She bears watching.

    But she is now in a position where it is way too easy to make compromises and slowly corrupt one's ideals. Speaking for myself only, I want to see how she handles that over the long term.

    So, she bears watching.

    I like her but she is not an automatic vote from me. Not at this time.

    Parent

    I like a lot of things about Elizabeth Warren (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:06:18 AM EST
    But I'm over presidents with 5 minutes of experience.

    Parent
    If it turns out (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    that she has a shot at it and begins to look like a contender it wouldn't surprise me to see the wall street banks she's been ragging on bankroll a presidency bid for her.

    Of course the flip side of that is that if they do that it would make her a contender, which would make it easy for many to ignore the bank bankrolling her.

    Parent

    A dark cloud (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    in every silver lining, huh Edger.

    Parent
    So tell me (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    Have you ever in your life encountered one major initiative that is a complete unqualified silver lining with no problems whatsoever? Where everyone agrees that the silver lining comes with no dark clouds?

    In my mind, the New Deal is the closest thing to that, and it has been a constant struggle to keep it from being corrupted. Because the few problems it does have leave it vulnerable. And, apparently, nobody who can do actually fix that problem want to make the program bullet-proof..

    What is the matter with you? I thought you were all about wise "compromise" and astute "incremental change". Such a path always has dark clouds because perfection has not been reached. Because it's, you know, thoughtfully incremental.


    Parent

    There are some who speak of (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:47:56 PM EST
    nothing but dark clouds.  You ask what is wrong with me; and, I ask what is wrong with them.  My view/opinion is that Saints are Perfect ... but politics and politicians are not perfect.  Here, it is a step at a time; yes, incrementalism.

     It is also my opinion that a real dilemma is inherent in those who seek only the perfect in politics or the "pure" as they define it. That is, they create an everything-is-so-wrong or everything-is-getting worse than the good ole days atmosphere that doesn't allow for a real silver lining.  Today, we see the havoc manufactured by the purity-purge that seems to have hog-tied the Repubs ... the ideologues begin to exclude more & more and the tests for inclusion are harsher & harsher ... all leading to a kind of political absurdity.  That is my caution in my own party: Retain and grow the Big Tent. Purity and holier-than-thou admission tests tend to squeeze more than a boa constrictor.

    Just my opinion.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:57:49 PM EST
    You ask what is wrong with me; and, I ask what is wrong with them.  My view/opinion is that Saints are Perfect ... but politics and politicians are not perfect.
    We are just supposed to accept the imperfect -- with humble gratitude and without comment -- as all we get? You may be happy with that, but I think we need squeaky wheels, to remind us of what could be better.

    This made me really, really laugh.

    That is my caution in my own party: Retain and grow the Big Tent. Purity and holier-than-thou admission tests tend to squeeze more than a boa constrictor.
    First of all, coming from you who spent last week essentially demanding a declaration of loyalty.

    And secondly being addressed to me, a lifelong Democratic activist who has left the Party. And hasn't looked back. They'll have to court me and those like me. And they have no intention of doing so.

    Parent

    By the way (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:59:18 PM EST
    As usual, none of this addresses a single question I asked.

    Parent
    Re-read my responses then (none / 0) (#118)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:13:50 PM EST
    ... and the comments from Edger and you that generated said responses.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    Re-read the questions instead.

    Parent
    And so it goes. (2.00 / 2) (#128)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:44:18 PM EST
    Funny (4.25 / 4) (#129)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    You want people to go back and re-read your comments, but you don't want to be bothered to do the same when you accuse people of something.

    And so it goes, indeed.

    Parent

    wev (none / 0) (#134)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:04:37 PM EST
    I guess the sky is not falling after all (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:43:20 PM EST
    The purity meme is nothing more than a way to discount the legitimate disagreement with policies adopted by the politicians of both parties. Evidently there is wide spread disagreement with what our government is doing or not doing up in D.C. In case you missed it, the approval level of how Congress is doing its job is now down to 9%

    According to Gallup, Congress's job approval rating is in the single digits for the first in the four decades that they have been polling the question.

    A whole he!! of a lot of us wanting a whole lot more purity in the people that are suppose to govern for the people and not just for the CEOs and the corporations. Your rosy outlook appears to be in the minority.

    What we have seen incremented a step at a time is a bigger and bigger gap between the haves and the have nots. The interests of the 1% being put ahead of the 99% each and every step of the way. We have seen wages driven down so that too many need to work more than one job just to eek out the barest level of existence.  We seen meaningful cuts to domestic programs advertised as the means to cut the deficit only to find out that the funds from these programs were not really used to reduce the deficit but were used to provide more beenies for the rich. Both parties have proposed more cuts to food stamps while continuing giving billionaires millions in the farm subsidy programs. The list goes on and on. The trend from members of both parties is to take away services from those who have the least and give it to those that have the most and somehow you can view this as progress.

    Once again, only 9% approve of what is going on. The rest are tired of being sold a bill of goods while their government ignores their needs.

    Parent

    MO Blue: Good points (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:10:47 PM EST
    Yes, you state the problem well.  The growing have-nots and the undeniable large gap between the very few at the economic top and those consigned to the economic netherworld definitely has defined the breadth and depth of discord in this country.  

    Our political differences:  In a number of ways and in a number of areas, our goals and even some methods appear to align (from my perspective anyway.)  Yet, I continue to believe strongly that the "throwing out the baby with the bath water" solution or approach often results in more harm than good ... and not just in drenching those nearby.  

    Most of the time, I find that the chances for a successful outcome at anything are better in the hands of one who can make a deal with the political opposition when the time comes.  My reason for that belief is that, usually, the inability to take part of the loaf and come back persistently at a later time for the rest leads to no part of the loaf.  (In another thread, I referred to the good fortune of getting to hear and ask questions of Saul Alinsky when I was a college freshman.  I've been influenced a lot by the philosophy he espoused along those lines.)

    From my observations, politically, the inclination--when disappointed--to throw out all involved with this kind of economic injustice has a strong appeal.  It makes sense.  Yet ... if those who disappoint us at times are replaced with a new group of unseasoned replacements at a power level, what then???  IMO, it is far better to act more selectively ... figure out a handful of advances very specifically defined and, via an extant mechanism (political party or other real power group), and strategize for that result and for the person at the top best equipped and best tested to realize actual results.  Organized pressure groups can be very effective.

     

    Parent

    The "deals" to date for the most part (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:26:40 PM EST
    have either validated and implemented Republican agendas, eliminated civil liberties or been back room deals to implement policies according to the dictates of various industries.

    There is not a dimes worth of difference between the elements in Obama's Grand Bargain and the wish list of the "Fix The Debt CEOs.

    The only non-corporate group that has to the most part gotten their agenda through the Obama administration has been the LBGT community and they accomplished that task by very publicly getting in the face of the administration and declaring that no further money would be donated or work done for the Democratic Party.

    Parent

    We disagree on this one (none / 0) (#143)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:00:09 PM EST
    I see and experience a huge difference.  Hopefully, we can still talk about those differences ... and, occasionally, common ground.

    Parent
    What specifically (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by sj on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:25:19 PM EST
    are the differences you see and experience between present day policies and 80's Republican policies?

    Parent
    unfortunately, there isn't a pol in D.C... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:13:38 AM EST
    ...who has the "experience" we desire, who hasn't also actively engaged in the corruption that is the current backbone of the federal government.

    I vote for my issues, and Warren is the ONLY pol right now with any profile making any waves on those issues. So... she gets my nod.

    BTW, after being fans of them in my younger years, the Clintons need to go away. Between Bill and his "can't act like no wimp by listenin' to the American people and lettin' them be wrong" and Hillary's beyond wretchedly hypocritical and totalitarian reaction to Edward Snowden's acts of courage, well, the two of them have announced loudly and clearly, IMO, that they have nothing to contribute anymore.

    Parent

    Yeah I love that (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:40:23 AM EST
    she's doesn't have enough experience..

    Lets get those talking points ready now..

    All the wrong kind of experience in the world won't a competent, ethical, far-sighted administrator make.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    but while experience is no guarantee it's 100x better than lack of experience. We've seen the outcome of very little experience with both Bush and Obama. It's not pretty.

    Parent
    I think we're looking more (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    for high quality than quanity, no?

    Wanna check out someone with a lot of experience? Look no further than Dick Cheney. Or Kissinger.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:38:53 PM EST
    Since HRC is not like  Kissinger or Cheney, your comparison is nonsense.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 06:52:17 AM EST
    I should've remembered that here at fan club headquarters, "experienced" is always code for Hillary Clinton..

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 07:19:00 AM EST
    Since you want to revist 2008, "experienced" also meant...

    Joe Biden or Bill Richardson.

    But I know you're mind can't comprehend that because it disrupts your narrative.

    Parent

    lol (1.25 / 4) (#157)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 07:27:44 AM EST
    Yes, because I was the one who brought "HRC"
    into the conversation..

    I'm surprised you're not giving Mitt an honorable mention jb; in 2012 you seemed to think highly of his experience and expertise..

    Parent

    Actually what I thought (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 07:35:49 AM EST
    Was that his experience would be appealing to many voters.

    And I was right.

    But more people liked the shiny object and fancy slogans, so that's who they voted for.

    You and christine and MKS seem to think that analyzing a situation equates with support. Just goes to show that you don't really understand what "analysis" means.

    (And just because you are insinuating, wrongly, as usual, I might add, I need to correct you - I didn't bring HRC into the conversation either.)

    Parent

    This vvvv (3.00 / 2) (#184)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    But more people liked the shiny object and fancy slogans, so that's who they voted for.

    Doesn't sound like analysis to me.  What polling data re: shiny object and fancy slogans did you rely upon to reach such a conclusion?

    C'mon JB, just own it.  It's really not a big deal if you do.

    Parent

    W! T! F! ???? (3.00 / 2) (#193)
    by sj on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:30:20 PM EST
    Apparently I didn't get the memo that jb is fair game and is to be driven from the site.

    I'm honestly shocked at how many people are falling in behind the biggest bully to become a gang.

    Moreover, this bit of provocation is coming from someone who opines on the ACA without owning his bias. Hypocrite as well as bully.

    C'mon vic, just own your bias as an employee of the health insurance industry. It's really not a big deal if you do.

    But it is kind of a big deal when you don't.

    jb, I hope you don't let them do it. I'm guessing that part of the strategy is to provoke indiscretions -- which kind of worked last week. Only their desired outcome appears to be banning and not deletion of a couple of comments.

    And did you ever think that we would spend a whole week basically defending the same trench? I would have never believed it myself. I hope all this nonsense stops soon so we can go back normal.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#195)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    Didn't think it would happen, you and I agreeing so much. (Even though we actually agree on quite a bit).

    Just proving my theory that there are those who proclaim to be liberal are really as closed minded as those they mock on the right side of the spectrum.  No better than Tea Partiers, in my estimation.  Don't want to hear anything that doesn't comport with their world-view and just want to cover their ears to what's really going on.

    And, hey, I come from a long line of strong women and few small-minded people on a blog are not going to drive me away.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#196)
    by sj on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    ... that's true
    (Even though we actually agree on quite a bit).
    The thing is, where we disagree, we strongly disagree. With vigor.

    Parent
    Read all my comments (none / 0) (#185)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 12:36:48 PM EST
    I don't have the time or inclination to list everything I've written here, so go back and look through if you are at all interested in truthful conversation.

    Just own it vic - you are being disengenuous.

    Parent

    jb: When the "slant" is always the (1.50 / 4) (#172)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 09:35:20 AM EST
    same, it really isn't "analysis."  Believe me, I understand analysis ... and that concept does not translate to the technique of distancing from  personal views by using "some people," etc.  "Some people" say lots of things--different things.  When the "analyst" would only hear and focus on and write about some of the "some people," I (and "some people") would contend that it is a far cry from analytical.

    Parent
    Some people (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    Hear and read what they want.

    For example - what would have been the point in the 2012 race to discuss Obama's chances of being on the ticket?

    But like I said - people hear and read what they want to hear.

    How are those purity tests going?

    Parent

    Seeing and hearing "what they want" (1.00 / 1) (#197)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:41:29 PM EST
    We all have our own perceptual screens.  Political scientists have studied that screening in and/or screening out phenomenon for decades (aka the seeing and hearing "what they want.")

    For my part, I do read your comments, jb.  It may be that we simply talk past each other because of writing style.  I'm guessing that my perceptual screen has probably gotten activated by what I perceive to be a very large focus on the number of ways that the Repub "moderates" like Christie or Romney before him could win.  For me, at least, that message translates differently than the message you may be intending to send.  By the same token, I look at and often point out how the Administration and Democrats could gain/win ... for yourself, among a few others, that appears to be translated by a perceptual screen that says "cheerleader."  That is what I mean by "and so it goes."  

    What would happen if--just between you and me--we adjust the perceptual screen that we use to date to translate what the other says?  That doesn't mean that we have to agree -- because there are pretty apparent differences in our approach to political events & acts; but, it only means that we try something a little different than same old.

    Parent

    By your measure, christine, (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    the hours and hours that football coaches and players spend looking at film of their competition would be proof to you that they really wanted the competition to win, instead of what's really going on: coming up with a plan to counter their opponent and be able to claim victory when the clock goes to 0:00.

    Parent
    No ... I said something else (none / 0) (#201)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 03:37:41 PM EST
    Oh, really? (3.50 / 2) (#202)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    Where did you do that?

    Because this is what you said:

    ...by what I perceive to be a very large focus on the number of ways that the Repub "moderates" like Christie or Romney before him could win.  For me, at least, that message translates differently than the message you may be intending to send.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but football coaches have to have a large focus on the number of ways their opponents could win, do they not?  And by your own words, this would translate as support for those opponents.

    We can all read, christine, but you seem to be the only one who can't read jb's clear statement of support for Hillary and other Democrats and continues to insist that your perception is more credible than her own words.

    Parent

    So, you're just going to continue to ignore (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 10:07:07 AM EST
    the clear, plainly-written statement from jb that she is a long-time Hillary supporter?

    When is the last time you provided a link to anything in support of whatever it is you're thinking on any given day?  I don't think you understand as much about analysis as you think you do.

    jb can read something she finds interesting or worth discussing, provide a link to it and usually an excerpt, and that, in your mind is equivalent to the "some people" tactic?

    But you apparently think that your response and any opinions you have need only be supported by reaching into the deep well of your vast experience in government - from which you've been retired for how many years?

    When the specifics of an article, report, poll, speech, etc. are measured against pure opinion, I think you end up being the "some people" you have such disdain for.

    Parent

    Don't be silly, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by sj on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    But you apparently think that your response and any opinions you have need only be supported by reaching into the deep well of your vast experience in government - from which you've been retired for how many years?
    That's not her only support for her opinions. There are also dinner conversations with her friends and breakfast with her husband. It has always struck me as very "Thomas Friedman" with his anonymous "taxi drivers" who somehow always seem say exactly what Friedman is thinking.

    Parent
    Really Anne? (1.57 / 7) (#175)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    you're gonna jump into this?

    You guys have this little clique - the avenging angels of '08 - and you look out for each other, is that it?

    Parent

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    Since it's usually that same group that go toe to toe with me.

    Just seems in this case they can see what's wrong and misguided.  

    Kinda like your comments.

    Parent

    Jondee, did you take last week off or (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 10:38:21 AM EST
    just not follow the several days of "Let's Bully jb" discussion?

    For what it's worth, I don't consider myself part of any clique, though there are clearly other commenters with whom I share political and ideological views.  

    But that doesn't mean I can't and won't speak out when someone with whom I've had many disagreements gets unfairly jumped on, as happened with jb last week.  And now it's clear that in spite of numerous commenters pointing out the flaws in christine's "arguments" that jb must be a Christie supporter because she posted analysis of his possible presidential run - and she must, therefore "really" be a Republican - Christine is still gnawing on that bone and is determined to subject jb to a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-style argument and insisting she admit to being a Republican.

    She hasn't made that accusation of me, or others who opine and provide links to materials that discuss either Republicans or are negative with respect to Obama, so maybe she thought jb would be easy to pick on and wouldn't get any support from those of us who've had our disagreements with jb - I don't know - but whatever the reason, she can't or won't let it go.

    And really - "avenging angels of 2008?"  Since I was a supporter of Hillary in 2008, and so were jb and christine, how does that label make any sense?

    Parent

    WTF does that mean? (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by sj on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 11:04:59 AM EST
    Really Anne? (1.00 / 3) (#175)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 09:14:11 AM MDT

    you're gonna jump into this?

    You mean you want the other kids to move along so that the bullies can carry on undisturbed? Because this is exactly what this comment sounds like.

    Parent
    bullies.. (2.86 / 7) (#186)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    I'm not a fan of bullies..

    Where were you when the gang basically chased ABG
    off the site? That was a veritable feeding frenzy. Sure he was a relentless Obama booster (shill to some), but he was generally articulate and civil, and when not, certainly no worse than the rw trolls who apparently at least get props for trashing everyone's favorite bete noire..

    Parent

    IIRC, he "left" the site bcuz of banning (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:10:55 PM EST
    Pretty sure Jeralyn told him to leave, after he expressed too many opposing views on the GZ/Martin case.

    And to be fair, he freely admitted he liked provoking people on feminist sites and this one too. That's typical trolling behavior.

    Parent

    I'm happy to hear that (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by sj on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:15:17 PM EST
    bullies.. (none / 0) (#186)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 12:03:28 PM MDT

    I'm not a fan of bullies..

    I mean that. But you were being one. I take your word that it was unintentional.

    As for ABG, as it happens, I wasn't anywhere near that as I avoided the GZ threads like the plague. Only dropped into them inadvertantly. It's odd, though. I had plenty of policy disagreements with him, but when it comes to the position that got him banned, I was in complete accord.

    So you can go put that red herring to dry on your own porch -- along with your other unfounded accusations.

    Parent

    Please deal with facts not BS (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    ABG waa not as fragile as you are trying to make him out to be and no commenter chased him from the site. ABG would still be commenting here if it weren't for the FACT that he was 1st banned from BTD's threads. Then after several warnings, Jeralyn banned ABG from the site IIRC due to comments he made regarding the Zimmerman case. Comments BTW that the majority of your so called gang agreed with.

    Parent
    I don't know if I'll be able to explain this, (4.40 / 5) (#187)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    but my issues with ABG were ones of policy and his fondness for manipulating what people were writing into a form that allowed him to have the arguments he wanted.  And he did kind of like to push people's buttons, as I recall.

    Now, interestingly, I've had that same issue with jb - not the button-pushing, though - and there's plenty of comment history to document that.

    But I don't think I ever accused ABG of "really" being a Republican - although I'm sure I made mention of how I felt Obama's policies were more Republican than they should be for someone with a (D) after his name.  But maybe that isn't the right equivalent, I don't know.

    And I don't think we chased ABG out of here - I think he finally pushed Jeralyn too far and she banned him.

    As for giving right wing trolls props for trashing whatever it is you think is "everyone's" bete noire, I don't think I've found myself in alignment with anything one of those types have said, unless it involved sports, cooking or possibly, TV.  Unless you're saying that jb is a right wing troll, in which case, I would certainly have to disagree.  She is not.

    Parent

    Well (1.50 / 4) (#189)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    someone said something about people projecting and believing what they wanna believe and all I can say is that there's so much tinting and shading and painting with broad stroaks going on on this thread that it proves we're all artists at heart.

    Parent
    Oh, and christine (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by sj on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    In response to this:
    I (and "some people") would contend that it is a far cry from analytical.

    I have one more thought for you:
    That is my caution in my own party: Retain and grow the Big Tent. Purity and holier-than-thou admission tests tend to squeeze more than a boa constrictor.

    Just my opinion.

    I'm trying to remember who said that. I'm also wondering who the "some people" are. Oh wait. No I'm not. You're probably talking about your supporters, amiright?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    they got what they wanted didn't they? It seems to me you are making a better case for experience than against experience. I mean if inexperience only delivers you 10% of what you want because of inability or whatever and experience delivers you 30% of what you want it doesn't really matter about quality if it can deliver nothing for you.

    Parent
    And, another gratuituous (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:39:50 AM EST
    slam at Obama....and people wonder why some of us think it is all about Obama for the critics....

    Parent
    nobody wonders (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 07:38:23 AM EST
    Oh, not gratutious, surely (3.67 / 3) (#183)
    by sj on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 11:34:51 AM EST
    No question... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:30:53 AM EST
    Liz Warren.  Goldman Sachs have already bought Hillary.

    Liz Warren would have me very likely pulling a lever for a D for the first time since 2004, unless the Greens or the Libertarians nominate somebody really really cool that I can't resist.

    Parent

    A 200,000 dollar bj (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:15:54 AM EST
    no wonder Bill looked for love in all the wrong places..

    And yes, the Clinton Foundation does good work.

    Parent

    I think I just heard (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    six or seven fainting couches thump at the same time.

    and the sound of steel rulers coming out of that top, middle drawer

    Parent

    A side note on the "story" (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    In the past two weeks, a few papers carried a small news item about all the Democratic women Senators signing a letter encouraging Hillary Clinton to run and supporting her for President.  The signatories, pointedly, included Senator Elizabeth Warren.

    Perhaps, this week is one of those interim weeks where political stories are concerned.  So, perhaps, the news media needs to concoct some interesting races.  (Last week, the media vaulted Governor Christie to the front of the pack based upon NJ ... and, today, we read in WashPo and TPM, e.g., that Christie fares well in the Northeast but lags behind the others in every other region of the country.)

    What will next week's story be?  Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for some real media attention to the CBS non-Dan Rather imbroglio and any ramifications to the politically charged--and maybe too hot to handle--analysis.

    Parent

    The sky must be falling somewhere (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:16:06 PM EST
    I do agree that people conveniently forgot about all the Democratic women Senators, including Warren, signing a letter encouraging Hillary Clinton to run and supporting her for President.

    It is no secret that I would prefer someone more liberal. With that said, I don't know who the primary candidates will be on the D side and based on 2008 would think it would be a mistake to portray Clinton as the inevitable nominee.

    I do hope that somewhere in the mix there in a John Edwards type (without the sleaze factor) who is willing to actually talk a lot more about the poor in this country. The great majority of the so called progressive politicians go on and on about the middle class and either devote about 1 minute max to the "working" poor or forget about them entirely. They also seem to be blind to the fact that a lot of the poor are unable to find work in the current environment.

    Parent

    MO Blue: About what we would like to see (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:36:04 PM EST
    In my world of what I would like to see, your concluding paragraph about wanting to hear more genuine proposals addressing our country's poor and working poor is one with which I strongly agree.  'Wish that we could have an American political equivalent of Pope Francis ... because he really is pushing the Cardinals/Bishops showing he means business about how he expects them to live and model piety.

    As for a paragon for the American political scene: I always remember the conversion of the earlier abrasively tough player called Robert Kennedy ... imo, clearly he came to believe and act on what may have once been rhetoric as his direct interaction with the poor in our country's heartland seemed to demonstrate.  Ergo, the toughest of players can transform their own words into reality ... and, one of the most disciplined and dedicated and committed public servants has been Hillary Clinton.  Robert Kennedy was not a Saint in his maturation days, and neither was Hillary Clinton (in my estimation) ... yet, if you look closely at their development, you might find the mastered pragmatism growing into something quite positive for this country.

    Parent

    All this is a little premature for me (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:15:51 PM EST
    Plenty of time from now until the primaries heat up in earnest to see who is planning to run on the D ticket as well as on independent tickets such as the Greens. Hopefully someone more liberal than Hillary will run if for no other reason than to give liberal policies a voice on the national stage.  

    About the only thing that is a sure thing is that I will not be marking the box for the Rs.

    Parent

    Hopefully not too many more (none / 0) (#106)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    Dems in Virginia went with "other" in the AG race on the provisionals being counted right now. That's always a good way to elect the R's.

    Parent
    To the best of my knowledge there was not a (none / 0) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:09:01 PM EST
    third party candidate on the ballot for the AG slot in VA.

    In the Governors race in VA the "other" may have resulted in the D being elected and not the R.

    For the guy who finished third in the Virginia governor's race, Robert Sarvis had a pretty good night on Tuesday. Sarvis was the Libertarian candidate in the election who pulled in just over 6.5% of the vote. This wasn't just a landmark achievement for a third party candidate in Virginia but in the entire American South.

    Personally, when the winner validates Republican agendas, promotes and passes Republican policies, I'm not real impressed by a D after their name. They IMO just continue to move the bar further to the right and mainstream more and more Republican positions which at one time were viewed as extreme. Much like Obama positions that are so "mainstream " that they would be considered Republican positions in the 80s (period of Obama's favorite transformational president, R. Reagan). Republican policies either way.

     

    Parent

    To the best of my knowledge (none / 0) (#121)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:27:29 PM EST
    there was not a 3rd candidate, but there were many more write-ins than the number that separates the two candidates.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:31:42 PM EST
    Actually, Sarvis was not a spoiler for Cuccinelli

    If Sarvis were not in the race:

    Cuccinelli would have gone from 45 percent to 46 percent. McAuliffe would have stayed at 48 percent -- and won.


    Parent
    Exit polls have known to be wrong (none / 0) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    Most Sarvis voters said that if Sarvis hadn't been on the ballot, they just wouldn't have voted, so it wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome.

    Parent
    Come on jb (none / 0) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 05:59:41 PM EST
    I could provide links to all the times that exit polls got things very wrong including who would win.

    Maybe what is being said is true - maybe not. Based on past experience, I don't have the same faith in exit polls as you do.

    Parent

    I know exit polls go wrong (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:07:32 PM EST
    But Virginia is very much a Libertarian state (at least, outside of the DC area).  Many, many people here did not like the crazy stances Cuccinelli was taking, but they sure as heck don't like McAullife.

    When you have the exit polls, the Washington Post and a conservative site called The Federalist agreeing, based not SOLELY on the exit polls, but based on ACTUAL votes, it isn't hard to see that Cuccinelli still wouldn't have won.

    In the counties that Cuccinelli won, Sarvis received 7 percent of the vote (71,146 votes), while in the counties that McAuliffe won, Sarvis received 6.1 percent of the vote (74,149 votes). Sarvis actually received the majority of his votes from counties that were overwhelmingly won by Terry McAuliffe. The dynamic is the same if we look at the average Sarvis support in each county (as opposed to spreading out all the Sarvis votes across the counties and calculating percentage support that way). Sarvis received an average of 6.9 percent of the vote in each Cuccinelli county and 6.3 percent of the vote in each McAuliffe county.

    Remember that the total difference between your average Cuccinelli county (R+25) and your average McAuliffe county (D+22) was a swing of nearly 47 percent, yet the difference in Sarvis support between those two massively different electorates was less than 1 percent.



    Parent
    Lara Logan is Fox news material (none / 0) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    and has been for sometime. If CBS tosses her she'll have a safe landing spot.

    Parent
    This has been a lesson for me (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    about one L. Logan.  I see what you mean CG.  But, was there any supervision ... where was the Producer or the CBS News dept head?  Given the obvious political nature with obvious political reactions of the Issas and Lindsey Grahams of the world, could one conclude that this situation amounts to more than a reporter botch?

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#155)
    by kmblue on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 07:08:45 AM EST
    Dan Rather gets canned for falling for a hoax, and Logan makes a 30 second apology and keeps her job (so far).

    Parent
    Oh no, not again.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:23:23 AM EST
    another alleged drug war rape in New Mexico.

    Perhaps the most troubling of all is medical professionals going along with these sexual assaults...it's almost expected from cops, but not doctors and nurses.

    Dog, this one (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 07:44:45 PM EST
    happened in Texas, to a New Mexico resident.
    So we've got cops and doctors in two states doing this.  
    This is shameful.  The cops, their supervisors, and the medical personnel all need to be fired.  And the doctors should permanently lose their licenses to practice.

    Parent
    terrible story kdog... (none / 0) (#138)
    by fishcamp on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 06:32:34 PM EST
    thought of you first thing, kdog (none / 0) (#151)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 03:42:54 AM EST