Follow the thread.
Make a new account
Looking good for the Dems.
(It's a video) Parent
Not so sure this is like the Franken recount because this will take forever if as expected it goes to federal court.
link Parent
Volume 183 Volume 182
Peace to all.
They Told All the Fine Young Men Parent
Volume 184 Volume 183
Get your peace on, my friends.
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
best place on earth to buy cheapass duct-tape and children's toys actually made by children, tho. Parent
Paper goods of all sorts and sundries, but nothing that an child (or animal) will put in his/her mouth.
IMO Parent
Short of pounding your whiskers in and biting them off inside, this is the lowest cost way to razor shave. Parent
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
I always daydreamed that if I made the final table at the WSOP, the only company I would whore for would be Bambu. Parent
Yes
Now this about Fraud from James O'Keefe.
Drip, drip, drip.
LINK Parent
Yes I'd like to shooter the slimey, Nixonian dirty trickster messenger. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Parent
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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:
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
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.
Affordable Care Act: No impact on Tricare, but some coverage isn't equal Parent
It doesn't matter how often people tell you this, you don't believe it.
It's time to start believing it. Parent
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
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
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
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 voters also think like 1 percenters. These 0.36 percenters think that they know everything better than the 99.64%. Parent
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.
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
lol Parent
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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."
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
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
A shame more people don't have her silver lining outlook. Parent
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.
the breast cancer survivor is very happy with what will be available for her under the ACA.
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
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
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 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.
The prices in Florida for me are excellent, but I'm also a pure profit godsend for insurance companies should I sign up.
Morally dishonest, IMO. Parent
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 while you scold some of those who really need help medically. So yes. Morally dishonest.
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
So you'll just have to understand why I can't work up a big RAH-RAH for this complete mess. Parent
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
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
The one year extension (even if possible) would create a long term hardship for a short term gain. Parent
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
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
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
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
The key here is that without Obamacare, we do not have access to any doctors at all. Parent
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
>:) Parent
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
And so it goes, indeed. Parent
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
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.
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
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
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
Wanna check out someone with a lot of experience? Look no further than Dick Cheney. Or Kissinger. Parent
Joe Biden or Bill Richardson.
But I know you're mind can't comprehend that because it disrupts your narrative. Parent
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
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
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
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
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
(Even though we actually agree on quite a bit).
Just own it vic - you are being disengenuous. Parent
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
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
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
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
You guys have this little clique - the avenging angels of '08 - and you look out for each other, is that it? Parent
Just seems in this case they can see what's wrong and misguided.
Kinda like your comments. Parent
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
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're gonna jump into this?
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
And to be fair, he freely admitted he liked provoking people on feminist sites and this one too. That's typical trolling behavior. Parent
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'm not a fan of bullies..
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
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
I (and "some people") would contend that it is a far cry from analytical.
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.
Just my opinion.
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
And yes, the Clinton Foundation does good work. Parent
and the sound of steel rulers coming out of that top, middle drawer Parent
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
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
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
About the only thing that is a sure thing is that I will not be marking the box for the Rs. Parent
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.