NFL Sunday Open Thread

The Amato and Armando Show:

The picks (disagreements in BOLD John Amato (J), Armando (A)): (J) Buffalo Bills -1, (A) New York Jets -1, (A) Jacksonville Jaguars +8, (J) Arizona Cardinals -8, Cleveland Browns +6 over Cincinnati Bengals, Washington Redskins +4 over Philadelphia Eagles, San Diego Chargers -1 over Miami Dolphins, (J) Atlanta Falcons -1, (A) Tampa Bay Buccaneers -1, (A) Green Bay Packers +6, (J) New York Giants -6, Chicago Bears -3 over Baltimore Ravens, Denver Broncos -8 over Kansas City Chiefs, Pittsburgh Steelers +3 over Detroit Lions, Seattle Seahawks -13 over Minnesota Vikings, (J) Houston Texans -10, (A) Oakland Raiders (+10), Carolina Panthers -1 over New England Patriots, New Orleans Saint -3 1/2 over San Francisco 49ers.

Open Thread.

< Saturday College Football OpenThread | Monday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 190 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    He's fantasizing. She's plotting. There will be blood. (link)

    And the rest of the week's comics, just in case, by some unfortunate circumstance, you missed any:

    Vol. 189
    Vol. 188
    Vol. 187
    Vol. 186
    Vol. 185
    Vol. 184

    Happy Sunday. Repent, ye sinners. On second thought, keep sinning.


    Oooooh! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 05:39:18 PM EST
    Sounds like the Black Widow.       ;-)

    Ms. State The Obvious (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    Dr. Philip Caper, Bangor Daily News:
    We have to ask ourselves, who are the winners from requiring us to go through the expense and confusion inherent in trying to implement a law of over 2,000 pages? The answer is clear. It's a health insurance industry that profits from complexity and confusion, and providers of pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, devices and services who benefit excessively from the very weak cost controls inherent in our fragmented system of paying for services.

    The losers are all the rest of us. The ACA's objective, access to health care for all Americans, could have been accomplished much more easily with far less confusion, expense and complexity.

    I talk to a lot of people from across the political spectrum about health care reform. There is a growing consensus that improved Medicare for all is the necessary first step in repairing our badly broken health care system.

    During a trip to California last week, I ran into House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. When I explained to her that while I admired her efforts to reform our health care system, I remain an advocate for "Improved Medicare for All," she responded, "Yes, we should have done single payer."

    Perhaps there's still hope. Between Harry Reid's recent comments and Pelosi's epiphany, there seems to be a growing understanding of the problem, and its solution, in some parts of Congress.

    But first, we will have to get rid of the obstructionist politicians whose only interest seems to be in preserving a health insurance

    Keeping things on the table has always been a challenge for her kind though...

    The first thing we need (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 09:17:46 PM EST
    is a vocal blogosphere.

    Of course, having Obama at the helm when the Heritage Foundation law was passed silenced anyone who might have had a loud voice.

    It all worked so perfectly.  But politics was never a problem with them.


    Dean was talking single payer (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 09:40:36 PM EST
    this AM. I never watch the Sunday shows any more, but I did catch the ABC one today and that's what he was saying, more than once . . .

    Oh noooooooo (4.20 / 5) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 09:59:00 PM EST
    People were actually advocating for single payer.

    No. No. No. That can not be allowed.....Obama didn't campaign on it.

    Wow what can they be thinking of. I have it on great authority (world renown "decider" on what can be negotiated) that to start the discussion on health care from single payer "is total juvenile nonsense from people who have no idea what they are talking about."

    Now you are telling me that Dr. Carper, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are talking about single payer and "there is a growing consensus that improved Medicare for all is the necessary first step in repairing our badly broken health care system."

    Someone must tell them to stop immediately ....that starting point is forbidden....Obama did not campaign on it. <heavy sarcasm intended>  


    Maybe they want to concentrate on (4.33 / 6) (#11)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 11:12:24 PM EST
    holding Obama accountable for the things he did campaign on...or...maybe not.

    I think that's an area they avoid like the plague, and all this you-can't-talk-about ___, finger-wagging, tsk-tsking is one way to try to distract from it.

    Too bad it's not working.

    But as often as they squawk, "public option! public option!" they'd make great accessories on Talk Like A Pirate Day.


    Yah but (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:41:11 AM EST

    You forgot the part where a self proclaimed bot throws in that he is going to be a stronger Hillary supporter than I will be. While that has nothing to do with the topic, he automatically awards himself an additional 100 magic pony debating points, giggles inanely and proclaims himself a winner.


    It will be amusing to watch (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:55:30 AM EST
    I am a partisan Democrat and work to get Democrats elected.  I do not think that describes too many others here.....

    What will you do if Hillary does not adopt single payer?  She did not last time.  I hope she does, but it will be interesting to see if you turn on her if she doesn't.  


    Most of us support those Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:11:35 AM EST
    who pursue Democratic policies. OTOH, the majority of us didn't support  Republican policies in the 80s and 90s and some of us see no reason to do so now.

    The phrase "turn on her" is rather ridiculous but reverting to Bushlike techniques of making it about personalities rather than policy is your SOP.

    If Hillary runs, if Hillary is elected and if Hillary pursues the same policies that Obama is pursuing now, I will be just as vocal in my criticism.

    I will continue to advocate for single payer and point out the defects of the current legislation that was written by and for the insurance industry.  


    BTW, do you know what will not be (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:30:03 AM EST
    amusing to watch? It will not be amusing at all to watch Democratic incumbents and new candidates try to dig themselves out from under the unnecessary fall out from the incompetent roll out of a defective product.

    The fact that the Obama administration did not take the time or the effort to make sure that their website worked jeopardizes the Democratic majority in the Senate and probably erases all hope of regaining the majority or closing the gap in the House. WTF Obama is just now finding out that insurance is complicated.

    The state of Kentucky could deliver a decent product but the Obama administration could not.


    Does being a partisan Democrat mean (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:46:50 AM EST
    that you support, for example, Obama continuing the policies of the Bush administration?  That you support a Republican policy of austerity?  That you agree that we have to "fix" Social Security and Medicare by changing the way benefits are calculated, even if it means cuts to seniors?

    If Hillary is the nominee - and I'm not so sure she will be - what would you like me to do if she doesn't run on single-payer?  What will you do?  Oh, wait - I know the answer to this one!  Hillary's a Democrat, so you'll go along with her platform no matter what is or isn't in it, because you are, as you've said, a "partisan Democrat."

    What do you do with all the time you save not having to actually think about the policies your beloved Dems are behind?  Do you knit?  Whittle?  Make pretzels?  Excuses?

    "Turn on her?"  What, with our sharp claws?  Is there hissing involved?  Dramatic music?  Do you already have a notebook with her initials written all over it in various colors and styles (are there hearts involved?), or are you getting a new one?

    Ooh, maybe that's what you do with all your free, I-don't-need-to-think-just-show-me-the-"D," time.


    Hillary will be the nominee (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:39:44 PM EST
    Her positions and history are well known.

     I see no reason why I would not support her.


    Medicare Plus ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    What will you do if Hillary does not adopt single payer?  She did not last time.  I hope she does, but it will be interesting to see if you turn on her if she doesn't.

    ... which Edwards and Clinton did campaign on, is single payer.

    Not that it has anything to do with what she will choose to focus on this time around, if she chooses to run.  Obama has f'd it up so badly that no Democratic candidate will touch healthcare reform in any major way for a loooooonnng time.

    Try again.


    No, it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    And you know that....

    Of COURSE it is (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:51:20 PM EST
    Just like Medicare.

    The fact that you have issues with reality is irrelevant.


    You repeat yourself at length (1.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:52:01 AM EST
    Every post has the same three paragraphs.

    And, I have already argued at length about what happened to the public option via Conrad and Baucus and Lieberman.  But no need to repeat.  



    Two Democrats and a so-called (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:36:27 AM EST
    independent who nominally caucused with Dems.

    Partisan that you are, you must have supported these people, no?  Conrad opposed the so-called public option and was a Stupak Amendment supporter, not to mention, he voted to confirm Alito to the Supreme Court.  And you support that?

    Baucus, well, this is the guy who hired Liz Fowler away from Wellpoint to help write the PPACA.  The guy who had single-payer advocates arrested and refused to allow anyone with a single-payer point of view to speak on the issue.  He opposed the so-called public option, loves tax cuts, big proponent of Republican-style tax reform.  But he's a Democrat, so you must support him, right?

    Lieberman?  Too early and my breakfast isn't settled enough to talk about that guy.  But he caucused with Dems, so I guess you support him, too.

    And they were all Obama supporters, weren't they?  Wouldn't be right to, er, turn on them for their consistent support of Republican policy, would it?  Does kinda make one wonder - well, it makes me wonder, anyway - why politicians who support conservative policy supported Obama, but I guess you'll take support wherever you can get it.

    I guess we have people like you to thank for continuing to elect so-called Democrats who don't support Democratic policy.

    Now, there's a legacy.


    Not Lieberman (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    And they were all Obama supporters, weren't they?
    In fact he spoke at the Republican National Convention endorsing John McCain.

    Never the less, to keep him in their caucus, he was bribed with retaining his Chairmanship of the Department of Homeland Security Committee. Not that this stopped him from

    ...terrif[ying] fellow Democrats by skipping several of the weekly caucus lunches that cement party fidelity in the Senate.

    And let's turn to Talking Points Memo. Apparently some people consider it a trustworthy site since the only links ever provided seem to come from there.

    Ok. Even though he retained his chairmanship, he threatened to ...

    ... filibuster a tentative public option compromise unless it's stripped of its key component: a measure that would allow people aged 55-64 to buy insurance through Medicare.
    he told reporters ...he would in fact filibuster any health care bill he doesn't agree with.
    A person can find links all day long showing Lieberman for the snake he is, and not use the same one twice. But you know, he caucused with the Democrats and even with his support they couldn't get a public option passed. Oy.

    And re-read that first quote from TPM again. It is talking about a key component:

    a measure that would allow people aged 55-64 to buy insurance through Medicare.
    But apparently opening up Medicare was never discussed.

    But some people apparently think that repeated assertions of personal opinion somehow transmogrify into fact.


    I am a Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:43:43 PM EST
    Good, get them (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:46:44 AM EST
    to campaign on it and win.  Make it part of the Democratic platform in 2016 and win.

    You miss the point.  In 2009, the die was cast.  If you want to get a new start, run on it, campaign on it, and win.

    That you personally never abandoned single payer in 2008 does not matter.  You are not the one to enter into any negotiations.   You need public officials to run on it and win.

    The question will become: Will Hillary run on single payer in 2016?   If she doesn't, it won't happen.


    Those who continue to advocate for (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 07:14:58 AM EST
    single payer know that the die was cast in the Obama administration

    We acknowledge that Obama made back room deals with the insurance industry, pharma and the medical industrial complex to eliminate almost everything that would actually provide good quality affordable health care.

    We acknowledge that Obama once said that he would support single payer but that the Democratic Party would have to be in the WH and have majorities in both houses of Congress. We acknowledge that Obama ran on having a transparent health care negotiating process where the negotiations would be televised on CSpan. We acknowledge that Obama ran on a robust public option. We acknowledge that Obama ran on negotiating prescription drug prices and allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. We acknowledge that Obama campaigning on those issues did not make it happen because he chose to sell out to the insurance and medical industries instead. IOW, it didn't make a d@mn bit of difference what promises he made when he campaigned.

    Another little piece of history, Obama did not campaign on supporting gay marriage. In fact, he had a cure the gay minister campaign for him in SC. But low and behold, when the LGBT community demanded that he support their objectives or he could do without their support both financially and to GOTV, he had this great eye opening experience and evolved. IOW, it didn't make a difference what he campaigned on because the LGBT community forced his change of policy by their actions.

    We know that there are partisan Democrats willing to support legislation that was written by and for the insurance industry because it was a Democratic president making the back room deals. We know that these same partisan Democrats will make obtaining a single payer system harder by continuing to say that it is impossible and advocating for the insurance industry in their zeal to support their Democratic hero.


    Some people (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 07:44:17 AM EST
    are determined to "win", even if they and everyone else have to lose for them to be able to count a "win". They are insane.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 07:54:47 AM EST
    I'm so looking forward to Mrs Dwight Eisenhauer
    vs the moribund corpse of Ronald Reagan in 2016..

    I can clue the pumas in: the identity politics rush of vindication starts wearing off after a couple of months.


    I thought we were already (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:12:43 AM EST
    reliving the Reagan policies of the 80s, the Dole policies of the 90s, the Bush policies of the 2000s as well as throwing in some of the policies that McCain campaigned on that Obama was briefly against when in campaign mode.

    As to identity politics, haven't seen any sign of it wearing off from the bots.


    At this (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:49:36 AM EST
    point I'll take Eisenhower over Dole's health policy, Reagan's tax policy and Bush's privacy policy.

    Obama has allowed the conversation to be pulled so far to the right it's not even funny. Eisenhower would be considered the left these days.


    And yet (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:43:47 AM EST
    The pumas were eerily prescient about many things...

    I agree wholeheartedly.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:45:12 AM EST
    Obama and gay rights? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

    You are really on a tear about Obama.  I thought we were talking about Hillary and the future.  No need to make everything about Obama.    


    No you were talking about Hillary (4.33 / 6) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    We were talking about single payer insurance.

    If there is no need to make everything about Obama, why did you make it about Obama and what he did in 2009? You have been like a broken record repeating over and over again "We can't have single payer because Obama did not campaign on single payer."..... "We can't have single payer because Obama did not campaign on single payer." over and over and over again.

    That point is no more valid the 10th time than it was the first time you made the statement.


    The point (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:32:18 PM EST
    I was making, and do so at the risk of being labeled a broken record but it does seem to have not been understood, is that the die was cast in 2008 during the campaign for that go round on health care.

    I mention this because your crew is relentless in blaming Obama at every turn for there being no single payer.    

    I would look forward but this group here will not let it go....Thus, you go off on Obama and gay rights.  No one was talking about that but you just threw it in.


    It won't happen ... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:39:00 PM EST
    ... because Obama screwed the pooch so badly this time that no one will touch healthcare reform for many years.

    But nice try.


    The excuses begin (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:57:12 PM EST
    Hillary won't be able to do it because of Obama....

    I knew that was the next shoe to drop....


    Not just Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:59:36 PM EST
    No one will be able to.

    But I understand why you're trying so hard to blame her in advance for the failures of the guy you supported.  Transparent?  Yes.  Pathetic?  Sure.  But you work with whatever argument you've got, right?


    It is the rank double standard (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:06:17 PM EST
    that you employ.  If single payer is more than just a debating point for you, then you should support it consistently,which means holding your favorite politicians to account.  But you won't do that with Hillary....Why do you give up so easily in advance?

    It is easy to complain.   Many do it.  Much harder to actually do something positive.  Even given the opportunity to push single payer with your chosen candidate, you will not do it.  Easier to just complain.


    No double standard at all (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:12:08 PM EST
    I do support single payer.

    I also know that significant healthcare reform (including single payer) is now radioactive - thanks to the failures and broken promises of the guy you supported.


    You must be very young (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:15:56 PM EST
    Health care has been radioactive seemingly forever.  Going back beyond the the Harry and Louise ads when Hillary was championing health care reform in 1994.

    You are just whining.   Throwing in the towel in advance due to your view of reality.


    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    Was it "radioactive" when Obama promised a public option?  Was it "radioactive" when he promised imported drugs and no backroom deals?  Was it "radioactive" when he sat on the sidelines waiting for a bill to be delivered to him?



    Well you posit radioactivity (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:21:16 PM EST
    far into the future to defend Hillary.....

    What is this third law of radioactivity that only protects Hillary?


    "Far into the future" (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:23:51 PM EST
    Three years.



    28? (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:27:42 PM EST
    2016 (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:32:56 PM EST
    It's 3 years from now.

    But I do love the claim that the failure to pass healthcare reform made single payer (or even a promised public option) impossible 16 years later, but someone's supposed to advocate single payer 3 years after a miserable failure of Obamacare.



    No, the question was (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    are you 28 years old?  24?

    Your perception skills (none / 0) (#156)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:35:51 PM EST
    Right on par with your skills of logic and reading comprehension.

    But I understand why you choose not to address the point.


    Oh, just answer (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:44:28 PM EST
    What holds you back...

    Oh, silly me, (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:17:46 PM EST
    it was Obama's fault that healthcare reform failed in 1994.  His fault the Republicans took Congress in 1994. Got it.

    Then we finally agree (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:20:06 PM EST
    You are "silly" indeed.

    You are sounding younger (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    by the minute.

    What can I say? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    Your juvenile arguments set a certain tone.

    32? (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:26:55 PM EST
    6? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:34:11 PM EST
    The reason I thought you (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:43:29 PM EST
    young is that you have said you practiced family law and are now working for a large company.   That sounds like you went in-house if you are still working as a lawyer.  Younger lawyers do that, especially where you are changing fields.

    Family law practitioners are not typically sought by large companies.  If you had a successful family law practice, which can take a number of years to achieve, you would not just toss it away and become employed by a corporation.  It sounds like you were working at someone else's lawfirm and went in house.

    Plus, the arguments sound young to me....

    Perhaps wrong but you do evade the question.


    Oh, c'mon, MKS. If age signified anything (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:56:52 PM EST
    then Jim would be considered a genius.

    Why is it even any of your business how (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:58:31 PM EST
    old anyone here is? What makes you think you are entitled to answers on personal matters like age?

    After days of telling us that single-payer was an impossibility because Obama took it off the table, and it was politically impossible, anyway, and a bunch of gobbledygook about the so-called public option, now you want what, exactly?  

    We know you support Hillary, even declaring that she will be the nominee, but so what?  We'll know soon enough if she even wants to run, and if she does, she will soon have to go on the record with her positions and a platform, so we'll see where she is on health system reform.

    I don't expect her to advocate for single-payer, or even to open up Medicare.  I expect she will try to carry on the ACA - unless it is such a clusterfk by that point that she has no choice but to offer something different.

    Hillary has proven herself to be an establishment politician with full membership in the village, so she'll be the kind of partisan Dem you have so much admiration for.

    Which is exactly why I don't see myself supporting her if she runs in 2016.


    I asked because (2.33 / 3) (#166)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    I thought it was interesting. After all the personal shots you guys sling on a daily basis, I would just like to know the answer to that question.  Besides, if Yman is south of 30 as I suspect, good for him,  I am jealous....

    And talking of taking shots, what you throw at Christine is really quite egregious.   She was a career lawyer for the EPA working on air quality, or perhaps was it water quality.  In any event, on one of the real success stories of environmentalism where so few such instances exist.....She has actually accomplished something aside from just complaining.  Perhaps if you were civil, we could get some inside scoop.  I would prefer that to the umpteenth version of woe is me, Obama has destroyed all that is right and good.


    FWIW, I'm pretty sure Yman is far north of 30 (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:18:12 PM EST
    and I'd also be willing to bet that none of us really knows what everyone else here has "accomplished." (And if we did, there would be sniping about how it isn't as impressive as this one or that one's "accomplishments.")

    I'm starting to feel very relieved I didn't go to law school, as planned. You lawyers are always in p*ssing matches.


    General practice (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    ... with an emphasis on family law.  I never said I was a "divorce lawyer" - as you falsely claimed.  I also never said I was "now working for a big company" - as you also falsely claimed - on top of Politalkix's lies.  If you actually do practice, you really should learn to read more carefully.

    Of course, none of this is remotely relevant to the issue


    I do not begrudge (none / 0) (#162)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:59:42 PM EST
    successful divorce lawyers or family law lawyers their due.   They can make a lot of moolah....Indeed the West LA version make oodles of moolah.  And they tend not to practice in large or medium sized firms.   To make it on their own, is an accomplishment.

    You went to work for someone else, no?


    I couldn't care less ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:07:06 PM EST
    ... whether you begrudge someone or not.

    But - apart from correcting your misstatement of my background, I am curious about whatever point you're moving toward at such a glacial pace.


    U R (none / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:08:22 PM EST
    an .....

    Speak English (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:22:16 PM EST
    BTW - Your guesses - as usual - are entirely wrong.  I'm well "north" of 30.

    Which, like most of your diversions, is entirely irrelevant.


    Five letter word; hence, (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:27:38 PM EST
    the five dots.  Begins obviously with a vowel.  Come on, with all that supposed sagaciousness, you can figure it out.  

    So, as usual ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:09:26 AM EST
    ... you had no pint, other than to divert from an issue you didn't want to/couldn't address.

    U R a .....

    C'mon, Mr. Sagacious.

    You can figure it out.


    You know, when he dropped (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:33:47 AM EST
    "sagaciousness" into the conversation, all I could think of was an episode of "Friends" where Joey starts salting his conversations with words he'd never ordinarily use:

    JOEY: Hey, look, I don't need you getting all judgemental and condescending and pedantic.

    ROSS: Toilet paper?

    JOEY: Yeah.

    So, give MKS time to see what today's word is and whether he can use it appropriately.


    I'm going to channel the late (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:58:24 AM EST
    Howard Zinn and remind everyone that we need to put our over-worked, cynical, depressive thinking processes to the side and remember that inspired, well organized people power can accomplish some amazing things..

    We delude ourselves and waste way too much energy hanging onto the hope that our Great Man and Woman views of history will someday come to fruition..

    People need to put their petty bourgeois bickering and superficial identity politics to the side and get out in the street and raise hell.
    You'd be amazed at the turnaround some of these embedded careerist pols can make when their foot soles are getting scorched..

    Roosevelt supposedly said to the Koch brothers of his day "you don't understand. I'm standing between you and the pitchforks." That happened due to people power, not the Great FDR.


    Wasn't that actually (none / 0) (#177)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:15:12 AM EST
    Obama to the bankers?

    The bankers struggled to make themselves clear to the president of the United States.

    Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees -- and, by extension, to themselves.

    Continue Reading Text Size
    -+reset Listen "These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent on an international market."

    But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that."

    "My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

    How'd that work out?


    How was my post about your (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:01:36 AM EST
    obsessive bete noire, Obama?

    I'm talking about what We The People can do, not about Obama or Hillary Clinton-Goldman-Sachs.

    Your comment (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:39:23 AM EST
    Roosevelt supposedly said to the Koch brothers of his day "you don't understand. I'm standing between you and the pitchforks." That happened due to people power, not the Great FDR.

    When I say people power (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:56:27 AM EST
    I mean people power. It isn't code for Obama the way "experienced" is a code word meaning HRC for some here.

    You attrributed your quote (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:58:02 AM EST
    to FDR.  He may have said it.  But Obama is the one who DID say it.

    I had no issue with your "people power".


    Not gonna let t go.. (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    I never once mentioned Obama and wouldn't in that context, and only ever heard the quote attributed to FDR. Rightly or wrongly.

    My condidered opinion at this point is that Obama and Mrs The-last-word-in-experience can't both get a good running start a take a flying f*ck at the moon. Not to put too fine a point n it..


    Which is exactly why (none / 0) (#190)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:16:22 PM EST
    I ASKED if you meant the quote Obama said to the bankers.

    But of course, you don't want to read and would rather try and start an argument over what YOU yourself said.



    Oy (none / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    let it go already. My post had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. You're just gonna have to take my word for it. You remind me of Captain Ahab, whose every thought revolves around getting back at the white whale.

    Funny, I was thiking the same of you (none / 0) (#192)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    So, in otherwords, you're (none / 0) (#193)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, a point you'd like to see huge numbers of Americans reaching in hope of finally being listened to and getting the government we want, instead of the one being forced on us.

    I'm not big on crowds (the video from Tahrir Square made me hyperventilate a litte), but I'll paint protest signs day and night, and contribute in whatever other ways might be worthwhile.


    Conrad says (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    there were not enough votes for the public option and the refrain here is that Obama didn't try hard enough.

    Now, Hillary gets in a built in bye forever on health care.   You guys are unreal.  


    It's just reality (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:02:14 PM EST
    I know reality isn't really something you're well acquainted with, but the truth is  - as badly as Obama has f'd up healthcare reform, there's no way anyone will be able to make a case for more government involvement.

    What's funny is how hard you're straining to blame others instead of looking in the mirror.


    I am not blaming others (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:08:46 PM EST
    Why do you now abandon single payer.  After going on and on how Conrad was talking about reality when he said the votes weren't there?

    Now, you turn on a dime and are adopting the reality defense?  What rank hypocrisy.  


    Who's abandoning single payer? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:15:54 PM EST
    Reading comprehension is something you should really work on.

    But watching you "turn on a dime" sure is fun.  :)


    Your Obama hatred is so (2.00 / 4) (#138)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:11:43 PM EST
    exquisitely consuming and all encompassing that you have already given up on single payer.....because perhaps you do not want Hillary to be criticized if she does not champion single payer.  

    Talk about self reflection.....Why not hold her to account?  Even Anne says she will do that...


    I will (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    I'm just not going to hold her accountable for the failures and broken promises of your candidate.

    An assertion (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    presented a fact.
    The question will become: Will Hillary run on single payer in 2016?   If she doesn't, it won't happen.
    It's just an opinion, like any other. Everybody has one.

    That last paragrapgh is... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    But first, we will have to get rid of the obstructionist politicians whose only interest seems to be in preserving a health insurance industry that has become one of the most destructive forces in American society.

    The Wyoming Senate race (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:33:24 AM EST
    is taking an even uglier turn.

    When your own sister is calling you out, and you are down by huge numbers in the polls, shouldn't you get out of the race now?

    In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Liz Cheney reiterated her opposition to same-sex marriage, telling host Chris Wallace that she disagrees with her younger sister, Mary, a lesbian who married her longtime partner Heather Poe in 2012.

    "I love Mary very much. I love her family very much. This is just an issue on which we disagree," Liz Cheney said.

    That prompted a swift rebuke from Mary Cheney and Poe, who took to Facebook to voice their disapproval in strikingly personal terms.

    "Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 -- she didn't hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us," wrote Poe. "To have her now say she doesn't support our right to marry is offensive to say the least." Mary Cheney shared Poe's message on the social networking Web site, adding, "Liz -- this isn't just an issue on which we disagree -- you're just wrong -- and on the wrong side of history."

    And, Liz Cheney won't call herself a Tea Party candidate

    Hmmm....wonder why?  Maybe because "Tea Party" is becoming toxic?

    Get the popcorn ready....

    Why do you think Liz is a Tea Party candidate (none / 0) (#68)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:45:47 PM EST
    Her Dad is a very establishment Republican.  Lots of Tea Party folks seem to take an isolationist position on foreign policy, certainly not the Neocon position her Dad takes.

    I am not really a fan of Liz running for the Senate or of lots of the Tea Party positions.  But that does not mean I put them in the same bucket.


    Or Maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    She may not have a secret membership, but she states she supports it/them, a political distinction if there ever was one.  

    IOW she would like the losers to vote for her, but she doesn't want to alienate the non-extremists, nor does she want to be beholden to people who think Ted Cruz is a political Einstein.

    But in the end, it doesn't matter in that there is no political Tea party, they are all republicans, some just a little dumber than others.


    There really are two Americas (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:47:39 AM EST
    Republistan and Democravia

    If you've watched the high-profile legislative fights of the last few years and found yourself thinking the two parties in the House of Representatives must represent separate countries, you might not be too far off the mark.

    In the Senate, the two-lawmakers-per-state structure creates the moderating possibility of legislators from different parties representing the same set of voters. But the House's single-member districts divide it into a body of two separate countries that do not overlap. That separation is exacerbated by rampant gerrymandering and America's increasingly ideologically ghettoized geography. The result is that when it comes to the U.S. House, John Edwards was right to say there are "two Americas" and Barack Obama was wrong to insist that "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America."

    In practice, this means that when trying to pass legislation, Speaker John Boehner and his party's leadership only have to market their ideas to the specific nation that lies within Republicans' 234 districts. It means, in other words, that Republicans are empowered to embrace positions that differ from both House Democrats and America as a whole.

    It really isn't amazing how people keep talking past each other and why we've become so polarized.

    Yes, we keep talking past each other (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:14:03 AM EST
    Compromise can have positive aspects.

    Personally I am glad that the Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    in the House would not agree with this "compromise" that Obama negotiated with Boehner in July 2011:

    Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

    Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that's the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

    Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

    Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny.

    Can't see where that "compromise" would have positive outcomes. There is no way I would find any of those items acceptable.


    Yes, compromise can be great, if (4.40 / 5) (#35)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:39:49 AM EST
    you want to have Chinese for dinner, I want Italian and we "compromise" on Mexican.

    But so many of the issues people are "talking past each other" on are ones where compromise isn't acceptable to either side.  For example, I'm never going to agree that we need to fix Social Security by changing the way we calculate benefits if that's going to reduce them, so there's no compromise on that that works for me.  

    Likewise, I'm not in favor of eating away at the right to choose.  And I think we've already compromised too much of our privacy in the name of security, and those compromises are why we can't seem to get that privacy back.  If the ACA was meant to be a kind of "compromise" for the single-payer proponents, that didn't really do the trick.

    Forget politics and power, christine - just think about the things that matter to you and how much of them you are willing to compromise away.  If your husband tells you he'd like to have a girlfriend, do you stand firm against it, or would you consider the positive aspects of "compromising" on him only being able to see her twice a week, never on the weekends, and only in a 4-star hotel?  

    I didn't think so.

    And if there are things that could be considered common ground, wouldn't it be a good idea to decide whether any compromise moved you closer to where you wanted to go or closer to what you wanted before agreeing to it?


    I actually think of it (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    as there ARE things we can compromise on - lots of things where we can come to a consensus (remember, this country was founded on compromise.  See:  the Constitutional Conventional debates).

    For example - the article mentioned transportation funding.  It's pretty difficult to get people to be wild about increasing funding for public transportation in NY and DC, when they live in Butte, Montana.  Are you saying that those people are unreasonable because they don't want to pay for things where they reap no benefit.  Where the compromise needs to come in is giving to those people in Butte that maybe the people in NY don't really care about.

    That's how it's supposed to work, but that process has been bastardized. Conservatives need to learn that they can't get everything they want.  Liberals need to learn that too.  Which is why people in the middle are pretty fed up with both parties.

    No, I don't want to compromise on choice or Social Security, but I also wouldn't compromise on things like - placing a $10 per gallon gas tax on people who drive, for example.  But everyone has become so strident and we are to the point that for anyone paying attention, they don't DARE even listen to the other side or ponder their positions because "they're all just crazy" (which absolutely isn't true).

    How do we expect to get anything accomplished if we don't even have thoughtful discussions? (And yes, as I said, there are people who don't want to have thoughtful discussions.  That's a different issue).


    There doesn't seem to be any sense of (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:09:24 AM EST
    the "common good," where we all pitch in because we know that, even if it's not something we use or need, there are others who do, and to deny them whatever that is imposes a hardship that we won't personally experience.

    I read something at ThinkProgress this morning that has really stayed with me.

    According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about five million poor Americans will have no access to basic health benefits under Obamacare because they fall into a "coverage gap" created by this fight over Medicaid. Without expansion, they make too much money to qualify for their state's Medicaid program, but too little money to qualify for subsidies on the individual market. They're left out of Obamacare altogether. A New York Times analysis estimated that number to be a little higher, concluding that 8 million low-income people will be locked out of health reform.

    This group includes much of America's working poor who struggle to make ends meet with their jobs in the service sector. It consists of thousands of cooks, janitors, nurses' aides, truck drivers, and waiters.


    Millions of people locked out of Obamacare? Hardworking Americans struggling to get by who can't realize the promise of affordable health coverage? That seems like a political scandal. But the main focus of the political and media outrage over Obamacare's troubled rollout hasn't really focused on those people. As a whole, the political system isn't incredibly worried about the fact that low-income and uninsured Americans -- the people without much political influence to begin with -- are victims of a partisan divide over the health law.


    Nonetheless, the political scandal over the Americans losing their current health plans reached a fever pitch this week. Republican lawmakers rushed to come up with several different policy "fixes" to preserve those people's access to their existing coverage, and their proposals are winning the support of a growing number of Democrats. The Obama administration released a new administrative rule to slightly tweak the health law, essentially a concession to the growing concerns on both sides of the aisle.

    Meanwhile, the low-income Americans who are arguably the real victims of Obamacare's rollout, the people who will continue to live in a country that does not provide any path to health coverage, haven't gotten congressional hearings and several pieces of legislation in their names. They haven't gotten a "fix." No one is clamoring to rescue them. The administration did work to exempt them from the individual mandate -- but that move didn't actually address the fact that they don't have access to affordable insurance. It simply ensured they won't be dealt an additional financial blow because of their lawmakers' decision to deny them Medicaid coverage.

    There's a lot more, and it's worth reading, but what I've taken away from it is that when it comes to matters affecting people who don't have power, don't have a voice, can't fight back, we don't seem to treat them like they matter.  There are many reasons for this, many of which we've discussed here, but it's really kind of gotten to the point where the attitude seems to be that if you don't have anything, you probably don't deserve anything.  It's probably all your fault that you don't have the good job and the nice house and the quality education, so why should people who managed to get those things have to fork out anything for you?

    There's no there-but-for-the-grace-of-God element anymore, even though we saw family after family fall into a deep financial hole just a few short years ago.  If you don't have a retirement account you can draw on, well, whose fault is that?  Why should we reward the retiree for not planning ahead like the rest of us?

    How many times have we read comments here from people who don't want one thin dime of their tax money being spent on things they don't use.  They don't want to pay taxes for education if they have no children in the school system, even though an educated populace benefits society as a whole.  Forget that - they'd rather complain about how poorly equipped people are to function in the workplace than see any connection between that and the education system.

    Sorry to go on, but this has a lot less, in my opinion, to do with compromise than it does with just outright selfishness and a need to always have an underclass to make the rest of us feel superior.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    And the rub has always been in politics the differences between rural and metropolitan America.  From guns to poverty to insurance even, the needs of one, along with solutions, are often in directly conflict with each other.

    And if that weren't enough, special interests seems to be gaining more and more influence of the ruling class in Washington that both rural and urban America.

    Insurance right now is the best example of that happening.  I think one would have to search high and low to find people who would object to some version of single payer health care.  But special interests has more influence of the entire process and we ended up with a product that is almost universally disliked.  Granted a lot of the dissatisfaction is because of the implementation.  But had the law been simplified, like single payer,  one would think the implementation would have been so much easier and, less problematic.

    Off topic a bit, are you going to be able to get your old plan back ?


    Oddly enough (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    In my cancellation letter, I was already given the option of keeping my plan for a year (with the deductible re-setting).  There was apparently a very small group of policies that this applied to, and that wasn't publicized.

    However, I can't seem to find a price (because of course, if they "renew" this non-ACA compliant plan, rates will rise), so I can't compare whether it will be a good deal to keep my plan for a year or just jump into another Care First plan.  I am very tempted to stay with my plan - until all the dust settles and we see where we are in a year, but I fear that they are going to raise the rates on me by a significant amount.

    Plus, I've been working 70+ hours a week for a few weeks, so I haven't had time to sit down at home and go through all my paperwork, and see how that lines up with all the changes that have happened in the last couple of weeks.


    'Couldn't have said it better, jbindc (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:41:55 PM EST
    Regional and local politics may and should have their own set of dynamics grounded on sometimes unique local conditions.  Where the conditions are broad-based and endemic to the society at large, I generally find a utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" works well in the majority of instances.

    Built into our system of "checks and balances" can be the temptation to stonewall/block another branch to exercise power.  The misperception that one side knows everything and "has God on its side" (or supreme truth) periodically girds such exercise.  Then, of course, we go nowhere ... except to cavil and dig in deeper.  OTOH, as you and others note, there are times when values and strong personal beliefs mean that compromise and the normal give & take are out of bounds.  The conundrum, it seems to me, centers around defining with specificity what are Values and What are Expected Issues of the Day/Issues of Governing.  And, that too, can be difficult for those who might have an extensive list of Values ... not unlike a discussion of Favorites in our house where my husband actually lists hundreds on a computer and I list a half-dozen.
    Differing perceptions give differing answers.

    There are questions that never get complete and final resolutions.  But, the Compromise that led to our form of government comes close... in outline.  What that form means to me is that most issues inevitably head toward a compromise process for resolution ... and, if that process is stymied, the issues involved likely go unresolved or are powered through by the prevailing party.  While the latter "power through" sometimes is the only way to get needed resolution when no compromise can be found, if that powering-through becomes the default position for most issues, the polarity in governance and other human interactions becomes so ingrained and so harsh as to preclude almost any movement.  The result:  No one gains, most everyone loses, and all are unhappy ... and the cycle to nowhere continues.

    What I have noticed in my life:  Most issues can be the subject of compromise; and, some benefit more from the test of opposing viewpoints than otherwise. Even the ultimate conflict, aka wars, usually end in a type of compromise and not the unilateral disarmament required in the unique conflagration of WWII.  While strong personal beliefs and spiritual beliefs can not be subject to the expectation of compromise, of course, those personal beliefs should not be the aim and subject of public governance. Viewed then as a fundamental component for governing a very large, diverse society, the word and the reality is essentially very good.


    Your analogies are flawed (none / 0) (#41)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:43:08 AM EST
    You never had single payer (other than in your dreams). And only in your dreams (and not his), Christine's husband would seek a girlfriend.

    All of us are content with what we have. That includes current healthcare plans for us and Christine as wife for Christine's husband. None of us are going to compromise.

    So no single payer for you (saying this with the best imitation of soupnazi in Seinfield)
    and also no girlfriend of your dreams for Christine's husband!


    :-) :-).


    "All of us are content with (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    what we have?"

    Thus spake Politalkix, so that settles that.

    For the record, the discussion was about compromise, and it was that concept I was addressing; once again, you choose to make it about something else, and then manage to completely garble the conversation.

    But the little smilie faces were a nice touch...


    FYI (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:53:29 AM EST
    I find smiley faces in a blog setting or anyone that uses them in work related emails, to be totally clueless.  Smiley faces are what kids put on their homework, not something grown A people use in communications with other grown A people.

    I have one friend that uses smiley faces and LOL in every fricken email, but he has a really good excuse, he is an idiot.

    Major pet peeve with me.


    What else do you have a pet peeve against (none / 0) (#69)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    other than smileys?
    Santa Claus, snowflakes, Bambi?
    Well, let me not go near Bambi. Bambi getting shot and killed passes as good humor here...

    More seriously-can you provide a list of your pet peeves? Cannot make a promise but will try not to annoy...


    Pet Peeves... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:29:59 PM EST
    ...when grown A adults do anything generally accepted as normal behavior by 3rd grade teachers in their classrooms.

    Santa Claus is not real, neither is Bambi.  Funny how your gut reaction is to list things kids believe in, much like the appropriateness of smileys in communications.

    And for the record, that Bambi swipe was complete non-sense when you consider that a lot of us are not pro-hunting types, which would put us on the other end of that paradigm.  Tree-hugging generally covers all things in the forest including it's inhabitants.

    It's a free country, not saying anyone can't do it, just letting them know how most adults view those kinds of 'cute' things.

    But for here, I find the spacing and asterisks by AAA not only annoying, but very presumptuous and arrogant.  I find the rules being applied very selectively here not only annoying, but very big brotherish, ditto for Zimmerman being a topic that cannot be discussed in 'Open' forums.  We cannot speak/write his name without permission from the ruler of the TL.

    But the biggest pet peeve here is the back and forth that occur nearly every day with the same people about the exact same things.  They eventually spiral into an unbearable Clintonesque like 'Define the word Is'.  And then to top it all off, when they use up all the space in that thread, they try to bring it into another thread instead of letting it die.  None of it being fresh or adding anything to discussion, just giant egos who have to always have the last word.  


    LOL.... :-)! (none / 0) (#70)
    by vml68 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:50:58 PM EST
    Sorry, I could not resist. And,I am guilty of using both of the above on this blog. I swear I am not an idiot. Atleast, not all of the time!

    If there's a better way to... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    connotate you're joking or being facetious in this here mode of communication, I'd love to hear about it.  I sure take no joy in typing the " ;) ", I just know no better way!

    Kdog How About... (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 02:25:19 PM EST
    ...writing, 'I am kidding' or 'that is a joke' or 'wink wink, I am loser who thinks winking and sticking ones tongue out are a crossover gestures that work well in written communications'.

    I don't know kdog, but most people seem to manage just fine without ever using those two or three symbols at the end of their posts.


    Fair enough... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 02:35:32 PM EST
    but some people take everything so seriously, it can head off a misunderstanding in two easy key strokes. It's economical! (you know what here) (giggling)

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    I'm not content with what I have.

    Guess PK has a really nice life - no problems, no bills, all is well.


    Don't worry - Hillary will save you, (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:21:22 PM EST
    and if she doesn't, well, it just wasn't meant to be and you should give up trying to get things you can't have.

    Ooh - I hope so! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:38:25 PM EST
    Then I hope I am taped just like this lady because since I support Hillary - I know you are correct.

    She will be our savior!


    Your analogies were so over the top (none / 0) (#51)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    that a light hearted response was all I could think of!

    I wasn't trying to say that one thing (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:19:59 PM EST
    was the same as the other, I was discussing compromise, providing examples of things I wasn't willing to compromise on, and suggesting to christine that maybe she gave some thought to the things that mattered to her and how much she would be willing to compromise on them.

    The dinner decision and the girlfriend decision were not offered as equivalents for larger issues like Social Security, the right to choose, or privacy rights, but as examples of compromise on a personal level.  And that even on a personal level, "positive effects" are not always obtained with compromise.


    I get that this is a lawyer site (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:07:43 AM EST
    but I have to say I'm not impressed.

    There's this unacknowledged prejudice and expectation here that Clarence Darrow is going to come back from the dead and act on our behalf. Why would anyone with any kind of grasp on the history of the last few decades have any faith in that eventuality? I mean really.


    Not sure how your comment is (none / 0) (#179)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:53:24 AM EST
    at all responsive to mine.

    I'm not a lawyer, for one thing, and I don't think I've said anything that would suggest I expect Darrow to come back from the dead.


    it wasn't reponsive to your post, Anne (none / 0) (#181)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:06:09 AM EST
    I just hit the wrong key.

    That was no analogy (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    This is the definition of analogy:
    a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
    Anne presented examples of situations where compromise is not acceptable. Because she wanted to show that such situations exist.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    happening of note: The GOP candidate for the house in LA ran on supporting the Medicaid expansion and won against his more conservative opponent in the primary.

    The more conservative opponent (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:07:21 AM EST
    that was backed by the entire House GOP delegation from Louisiana, the outgoing Congressman, and the Governor.

    Expected to lose handily and instead won by 20 points.


    Actually (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:18:08 AM EST
    The incumbent, Riser, who lost, was not only the establishment candidate, but also the Tea Party favorite, and finished ahead of McAllister last month (where neither got over 50% of the vote).

    Conservative activists said it's McAllister, who's never held public office and noted during the campaign that he'd never even visited Washington, that they worry would be the go-along-to-get-along congressman who isn't conservative enough.

    But he was backed by the "Duck Dynasty" patriarch, so I'm sure that helped pull in votes.

    Despite that profile, McAllister didn't push the "blow the whole place up" mantra that some GOP primary candidates have offered in similar conservative enclaves around the country.

    While he is critical of the atmosphere in Washington, he doesn't blame it exclusively on Obama. He also points a finger at House Republicans' 40-plus votes to repeal Obama's health insurance overhaul.

    "I will vote to repeal it if there's a vote right now today," he said in a recent debate.

    "But the truth of the matter is you stand on a platform and pander for votes on something that can't be repealed," he told Riser.

    McAllister says Republicans should show the president respect and that the best course on health care is to work on improving Obama's signature law since he was re-elected and Democrats still control the Senate.

    So, I don't understand your comment about the "more conservative opponent".  McAllister IS a conservative - he makes no bones about that,but more conservative?


    I doubt (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:58:56 AM EST
    that the Duck Dynasty guy really made much of a difference. I mean if it was a couple of percentage points maybe but the win was so large probably all he did was add maybe a few points. Also the Dem who is the mayor of Monroe, LA, threw his support behind McAllister.

    This one is interesting all around: the establishment and the tea party BOTH supported a candidate and yet he lost.


    There was no incumbent (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:41:49 AM EST
    And yes, poorly written on my part. Riser is more conservative. Someone in Louisiana (in this case McAllister) that supports the expansion of Medicaid is viewed as far less conservative.

    After winning the jungle primary over McAllister by 14 points, Riser billed the general election as a referendum on the ACA. He proceeded to lose to someone that supports Medicaid expansion by 20 points.


    The only political (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:05:07 AM EST
    parallel I can see to this ACA stuff is Vietnam. Since 80% of the people were against Vietnam back in the early 80's McGovern should have won in a walk but we all know what happened there.

    I don't think the GOP realizes that you can't just be against something you have to be for something too. Okay. They're against the ACA but they really aren't offering anything in the balance to replace it other than some jokey junk insurance and deregulation which will actually make the insurance problem worse.


    Bad Vietnam comparison (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    the people against the ACA fall into 2 groups: those that don't want the government involved in healthcare, and those that want the government involved far more. While those two groups appear to be on the same side of the ledger in polling results, they actually have nothing in common. That is what the GOP hasn't realized as of yet.

    Back in the day (none / 0) (#72)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:56:42 PM EST
    There were folks who thought the US could have easily won the Vietnam War if more realistic strategy and tactics were used.  The US military was limited to only fighting/attacking in designated areas.  There was no line in the jungle showing the borders of Vietnam.  There was also a DMZ (which was no such thing).  The US was limited in its military options in these, and other areas, while the enemy had no such restrictions.  Bombing the dikes in North Vietnam, mining Hiaphong, and the ability to pursue and engage across ill defined borders were all things many (especially in the military) supported.

    Just as there are folks who think Obama should have gone farther than he did with health care there are also folks who thought the US pols made the military fight with one hand tied behind their back.


    How prescient were (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    me and Christinep when we said that all that talk of the Grand Bargain was mostly posturing and the resident fearmongers could rest easy?

    I will say "Very"!

    Democrats these days under the leadership of BHO and Pelosi do not actually make the kind of bad deals that they made in the 80s and 90s.


    Our resident fearmongers were punked.

    That is 100% (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    NOT the reason they said a grand bargain wouldn't happen.

    It won't happen because both sides are running scared.

    Obama has had social security on the table since before he was elected.  He would have sold the store if the Repubs were to have the stomachs to do it....just like he sold the store on anything resembling a public option. He is not up for re-election, so his interest is in making his real constituents happy.


    This is what 11 dimensional chess (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:29:03 PM EST
    is all about. :-) :-). You make an offer to the other party that you know they do not have the stomach to accept and look reasonable to the majority of people who like the idea of compromise (the majority of people like compromise, atleast in the abstract) or what you call "his real constituents".

    I had written all about this in my posts many months ago. There is a place for "Mad Man bargaining" and there is a place for "11-dimensional chess"! :-).


    So you are thinking... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    ... that Obama is playing eleven dimensional chess? You're serious about that?

    Of course he is (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    Just look at how well he checkmated his acolytes right down onto their knees for five years with them still not noticing. No republican could ever have accomplished that.

    OMFG (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    Best laugh of the day.  Thank you.

    More like 1 dimensional checkers (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:43:10 PM EST
    Hey - how'd that work out for you on Obama's sequestration?

    Whatever it is called (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    Positioning for PR or prelim or for a host of audiences ... is only the setting for getting to the table.  The old "getting inside the opponent's head" and all that stuff.  And, I'd guess, that the positioning on all sides has a fundraising component and a designed intention for the base to push back ... all of which is duly reported as fact in the press.

    I pretty much agree that the Grand Bargain chatter lately represents the imagination of proponents (e.g., establishment news media like the Washington Post and other DC circles) as well as opponents (e.g., activist party members from both major parties.)  But, for me, since I never could play chess ... I'll try a card game that calls for application of finesse: Bridge.


    So you agree with yourself? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:41:52 PM EST

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 191 (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:28:34 PM EST
    Soylent Green is scrapple compared to this meat. (link)

    Volume 190

    Volume 189

    Have a great, er, good, er, tolerable Monday, my fellow free and freaky Americans.

    A Modest Proposal.. (none / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:18:45 AM EST
    well done my man. And by the way, that's also how I like my brisket of prole-child. If you're taking orders..

    Now, how about writing something like Blood, Sweat, and Canvas, or Hell: Ten Feet Square?
    Stories about big men in tights: physically and mentally. But mostly physically.


    Ridiculous facebook meme (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:09:46 PM EST
    so far removed from reality as to be, well, you decide...

    I almost didn't look at that (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    because of the link to Facebook. But it was worth the look.

    Hey, Donald from Hawaii (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 01:40:35 AM EST
    I'm asking here because the other open thread is closed: What the heck is wrong with Hawaii state rep Tom Brower? Has he gone crazy??

    In his spare time he scours streets and parks in his district, looking for shopping carts homeless use to store and move their belongings. He returns good ones to stores and destroys others with his sledgehammer.

    "I find abandoned junk, specifically shopping carts, and I remove them. I also create a situation where those carts can't be pushed around the city. I think it's a good thing," he said.

    The executive director of Mental Health America of Hawaii thinks otherwise.

    "His message to the public is that it's okay to commit acts of violence against homeless people, against vulnerable people. It's okay for vigilante justice," Marya Grambs said.

    I remember you commenting recently on Hawaii's homelessness issues, and I can relate, since we have a huge homeless population in Seattle too (some of whom I've known and tried to help). But Brower seems to have totally lost his senses. And this guy's a Democrat?

    I remember what seemed like a (none / 0) (#195)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    veritable mini-state of homeless people in the city when I lived in Seattle in the early eighties. And all those runaway, My Private Idaho kids who used to hang out around Pike Place..

    Many NAs and I even met one with Alaskan Indian roots who looked like he could've come over on the land bridge..

    Ah, look at all the lonely people..


    You can't talk single payer (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 11:23:25 PM EST
    without saying who will pay for it.

    The middle class will never support it unless it is paid for by what is seen as fair... meaning "everyone."

    A sales tax is the only acceptable answer.

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:45:06 PM EST
    The middle class will never support it unless it is paid for by what is seen as fair... meaning "everyone."

    A sales tax is the only acceptable answer.

    Because we pay for your SS with a sales tax ...

    ... and your Medicare ...

    ... etc., etc. ....



    Once again (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:06:43 AM EST
    economics raises its ugly head.

    As has endlessly been pointed out you could take all the money the top 1% get and it would run the country for around six months.

    There are only two ways to pay for expanded health care for the entire population.  One is to raise taxes on the middle class which is a political non starter.  The other is to continue doing what we have been doing for quite a while.  Have the federal government create more fiat money and suffer the consequences of inflation.


    The Feds creating money (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:45:59 PM EST
    won't pay for health care.

    And the middle class won't stand for raising their taxes to pay for it.

    OTOH, a national sales tax hits everyone.


    A national sales tax is quite possibly (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 02:13:56 PM EST
    one of the most regressive and punitive taxes there is, hitting the poor much harder than what's left of the middle class and the vaunted 1%.

    Now, try to follow along, if you can.  The Feds don't have to create money to pay for a single-payer system.  I posted some information from Physicians For A National Health Plan that describe how it could be paid for (I'm actually kind of surprised that you, being such an ardent supporter of single-payer, aren't familiar with their recommendations).

    Actually, I posted it more than once, so I'm not going to post it again - it's there in the FAQ section of their website if you're interested.

    Suffice it to say that their proposal would lower the employer outlay for insurance, and would reduce by two-thirds what people are currently paying for premiums, co-pays and deductibles.  Now there were a few people who saw the 2% payroll tax as - horrors! - a middle-class tax hike, but in pretty much any scenario I can come up with, paying 2% of your income is way less than the total of premiums, co-pays and deductibles that would go away altogether under the plan.  I'll happily give the Feds 2% of my income in exchange for keeping approximately $5,000 of the $7,000 I currently pay in premiums alone.

    And employers, no longer saddled with high costs for insurance, paying instead a 7% payroll tax,  would be able to either offer other benefits, or hire additional employees or invest it in the company.

    And think what people can do with the money they aren't giving to the insurance companies.

    Suggest you do more than just throw out the same old, tired reasons why single-payer can't or won't work and - if you really do think single-payer is the best way to go - start acting as if you really believe that.


    You Really Mean... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    The republican middle class won't stand for raising their taxes to pay for it even though the US has some of the lowest taxes in the world because their masters have brained washed them into believing taxes are the work of the GD devil.

    I don't know anyone that would object to a separate line item for national healthcare similar to Medicare on their pay stubs.  Taxes and helping the people in poverty are republican bugaboos.


    You need to get out more (3.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    if you don't know anyone who would object to new taxes.

    If the "new" tax replaces all the (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    out-of-pocket expenditures associated with health insurance - premiums, co-pays, deductibles, balance billing - and I have more money in my pocket as a result, I'd liken that to a tax refund.

    In my situation, a 2% tax would cost me around $2,000 annually; currently, I'm spending $600/month in premiums, I have a deductible of $800 and no prescription drug coverage.  So, let's say I'm out $8,000 a year, or $667/month.  Paying a 2% tax would cost me $167/month - $500 a month less than I'm shelling out now.

    I will take that deal all day, every day.  I can put $6,000 away for retirement, or I can spend it on my grandkid(s), or take the family on vacation, put it toward a new car, or a bathroom re-model.  It's money I'll be spending in the community, which benefits everyone.

    Now, you go ahead and tell us how it can't be done; I'm sure that's coming.


    Yes Anne... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    ...I though it was a gimme that the separate line item tax would be inline and a replacement of the medical line that currently exists.

    Some people apparently can't ever get (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 03:37:09 PM EST
    past the word "tax" to think through the net effect, which would be more money in our pockets - and the end of the private insurance stranglehold.

    I Get Out Plenty... (none / 0) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 03:37:14 PM EST
    ...just don't hang out with anti-tax folks.  We are all fairly young and all doing pretty well; liberals who understand that taxes are actually a good thing and that from time to time they are used to help people who haven't been as lucky as us in life.

    But I should revise, my Reagan worshiping parents throw a fit when there is even mention of a tax increase, never mind that they live on a farm in Wisconsin and their total tax burden is miniscule to say the least.

    But people I actually have a choice in hanging around are zero when it comes to throwing a fit over taxes.

    Which I would add that their demigod, Reagan actually raised taxes more than any other modern day president, but then again the R's didn't have this newly founded hatred of taxes back then and of course they had Obama blinders on for all his other bad deeds.


    When I get out (none / 0) (#165)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:10:26 PM EST
    I have no restrictions on who I hang around with.  Way back when I was in high school I spent more time preparing for my activities on the debate team than anything else.  Got a scholarship as an undergrad for my debating ability.  In case you don't know in many debate tournaments you have to debate the affirmative side one round and the negative side the next round.

    The best law professors, and lawyers, I know work under the assumption that the best way to prepare your case is to be able to produce good arguments on both sides of the question.  I am not talking about making straw man arguments and knocking them down.  Rather realizing that often those on opposite sides of the questions you support do have good arguments.

    That is one big reason I come to this blog.  Even if sometimes there is a problem with the signal to noise ratio I often find interesting positions on both sides of many questions.

    Your bashing of Reagan reminds me of the famous story about a liberal lady from the East 40s who said "I can't understand how Reagan won, no one I know voted for him".

    I still think you need to get out more.


    If that's ALL you were doing in high school (none / 0) (#170)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:02:19 AM EST
    then, I'm sorry, you must have been a crushing bore. Kinda like you are now (with debating skills that don't actually impress much)).

    My debating skill (2.00 / 3) (#171)
    by ragebot on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:36:04 AM EST
    are sufficient to point out you are trying to shift grounds and make a straw man argument instead of addressing my point.  In fact it is not clear from your post you even understood my point.

    Oh, get over yourself, little prima donna (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:55:17 AM EST
    I was on debate team in high school too, and did quite well.

    Frankly, your continual attempts to impress everyone with your so-called VAST intelligence and your NUMEROUS degrees falls on deaf ears here. And you are hardly the only person commenting on this blog who got a scholarship to college.

    Like I said: Get over yourself. Cause you're just a big, thudding bore.


    How about everybody (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    just pay a premium like they do now? Do it on a sliding scale but a sales tax hits the middle class and the poor the hardest so I don't know where you think that the middle class would go for a sales tax hike.

    We debated the fair tax here in GA and the middle class said no way so I don't see a sales tax for funding Medicare for all working.


    As always, thanks for the picks (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 10:26:40 AM EST
    If I had a functioning brain cell in my head, I'd take your advice on that Broncos game. But I'm stupid like that sometimes. Nice pick on USC yesterday, BTW.

    So The Onion outdoes themselves (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    with a particularly on point metaphor that's enough to bring a tear to the eye of even the most hardened.

    obama: I have a dream!

    What a coincidence! (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    So did Malcolm in the Middle's goofball dad, Hal (Bryan Cranston), and the dream was so scary that he had to wake up his wife Lois (Jane Kaczmerak) to tell her all about it.



    Yo Magster ... Go Broncos! (none / 0) (#33)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:14:55 AM EST

    My fellow Americans, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    tonight I want to apologize for the results of my efforts in reforming US healthcare.  It is now evident from the roll-out and the technical problems that have been exposed that we have created a complex system in which these types of problems will exist, not just at the beginning in the setting up of a website to sell health insurance, but as the law takes full effect.  Therefore, tonight I am announcing my intent to work for a major but simple change in direction.

    First, I apologize because these problems should have been evident before we passed the Affordable Care Act.  Prior to the ACA, the existence of the insurance industry created tremendous bureaucracy for consumers, doctors, health providers and hospitals as well as for business and the government. It also resulted in millions of Americans not being able to get the healthcare they needed, even if they had insurance.  After the ACA we now see these problems persist.  This is not surprising.  The ACA requires each state as well as Washington, DC and Puerto Rico to have an exchange to sell health insurance.  Each exchange has four levels of insurance - platinum, gold, silver and bronze.  Within each level there are multiple insurance companies and each insurance company puts forward multiple insurance plans. Each state has its own regulatory system for health insurance and the federal government has thousands of pages of regulations as well.  This is a very complex system not only for the purposes of selling insurance, but will remain complex throughout the system.  Doctors, health providers and hospitals will continue to need to spend more time and money managing payments for healthcare; businesses will continue to need to spend a lot of overhead figuring out what kind of insurance to have and government will have to create bureaucracy to manage thousands of insurance policies.

    Second, I want to apologize for stifling the debate we should have had in developing a national healthcare system.  When we began this process we had the opportunity to look at three very distinct systems currently operating in the United States - a market-based system dominated by the insurance industry with healthcare provided for-profit; a single payer system, Medicare, where the government is the only funder of healthcare and private providers deliver healthcare services;  and, a completely government-run healthcare system for Veterans (VA) where the doctors, hospitals and healthcare providers all work for the government.  This would have been a great debate that would have resulted in the United States putting in place the best national health plan based on our experience, and the empirical evidence, of what has worked and what has not, in US healthcare. I suspect if we had that debate the market-based system would have been shown to be the weakest of the three alternatives and a combination of Medicare and the VA would have been the most cost-effective way to provide healthcare for every person in the United States. Obama apology 3

    As a former advocate for single payer I knew this, but put aside the empirical evidence. Instead, I allowed those with the most money to decide what kind of healthcare we should have.  Even though single payer had the support of more than 60 percent of Americans, two-thirds of doctors as well as nurses, I ignored the desires of the people and instead worked with the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry and for-profit hospitals.  This was a terrible mistake and a missed opportunity that would have resulted in the United States getting on the path to becoming the most efficient and effective healthcare system in the world; instead we remain the most expensive system that produces mediocre results.

    Today, I am announcing the drop two words campaign.  Rather than producing a law of more than one thousand pages and thousands of pages of regulations, I am going to work to drop "over 65" from the Medicare law so that Medicare will serve everyone.  After we pass this law, future administrations can work to make the law better as even the best health systems in the world constantly work to improve themselves.  My hope is that Medicare covers more health services and ends out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, but for now we are merely seeking to drop two words and provide healthcare to all.

    B... Nov 17

    The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    Oh, please (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:08:54 AM EST
    Do you have to link to National Journal? I'm sure there are better sources.

    Um, it's a liberal publication (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    Ron Fournier was actually a long-time cheerleader of Obama, and has recently opened his eyes to the awesomeness of Teh One, so I'm not sure what your complaint is about, since it makes no sense.

    Isn't it (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:42:19 PM EST
    Bill Krystal's magazine?

    No (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    That would be the Weekly Standard.

    From National Journal's website:

    National Journal is regarded as the most credible and influential publication in Washington, providing more than 3 million influentials in public policy and business with the insights they need to make government work.

    Fiercely honest and scrupulously non-partisan, National Journal has a four-decade history of serving leaders in Washington--and around the country--with trustworthy, in-depth analysis on legislation, politics, and the structural trends shaping America.

    From Wiki:

    National Journal is an American weekly magazine that reports on the current political environment and emerging political and policy trends. National Journal was first published in 1969. Times Mirror owned the magazine from 1986 to 1997, when it was purchased by David G. Bradley. It is now, along with The Hotline, part of National Journal Group, a division of Atlantic Media Company.

    The magazine was established in 1969 by Thomas N. Schroth, who formed the publication after being fired from his post as editor of Congressional Quarterly, with many CQ staff defecting to the new publication.[1]

    National Journal is aimed at Washington insiders.[2] It is mostly read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations, and lobbyists. Most of the journal's content can be accessed only by subscribers. The yearly subscription rate is $1160, or $525 for just the weekly hardcopy magazine.

    The magazine has received three National Magazine Awards.[3]

    Maybe it's not really a "liberal" publication as I stated, but they have been pretty down on the Republicans.

    It's actually quite respected for balance.


    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    Thanks for the info. I guess I was confused.

    Ups and downs with NJ (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    My particular concern is with R. Fournier.  Some years back during the Bush races, Fournier seemed to me to expend a lot of energy trying to do a character take-down with Al Gore (and, I seem to remember, with John Kerry.)  The almost evisceration approach in his latter days at AP were so noticeable that I came to stop reading his writhing.  (An AP reporter friend of mine indicated at the time that Fournier seemed to have changed.  But then, there was a lot of internal shake-up going on at AP then.)

    You didn't read the specific article, (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 03:52:47 PM EST
    though, did you?

    Might want to do that before getting all "concerned."


    As I said (3.00 / 2) (#97)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 03:53:23 PM EST
    He was a huge Obama cheerleader early on.

    I think the fact that he is not now cheering on Mr. Obama, but calling him out now actually gives him MORE credibility than many other writers.  Unlike those who constantly cheer him on and make excuses for him.


    That may be; but, (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    I gave up on Fournier quite awhile back.  Kind of a point of personal privilege; so, Anne is correct, I do not read his articles.  

    Well, see the thing is that there's (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    very little of Fournier in the article, since he mostly just cites a Washington Post article from yesterday (it was a long article that I read yesterday), along with Pelosi's comments on Meet the Press and David Plouffe's remarks on This Week.

    If you were to take issue with anything, it would be the Post article and what Democratic leaders are saying in the media.

    For example:

    1. The Washington Post reported on Sunday that the Obama administration will consider the new online marketplace a success if 80 percent of users can buy health insurance. That is absurd. First, it's another broken promise. The president and his advisers responded to the disastrous rollout last month by vowing to deliver an Amazon.com-quality website by the end of November. (If history remembers President Obama for one thing, other than his barrier-breaking 2008 election, it might be the outsized and unmet expectations that paved the path of his presidency.) Second, in what other line of work is 20 percent failure considered a success? If one out of every five meals served by a restaurant is inedible, the joint goes out of business.

    2. The same story by Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin revealed that the Health and Human Services Department hired technology contractors without requiring specific performance criteria. It is customary in the private sector to include benchmarks in technology contracts. Not so with the seat-of-their-smarty-pants Obama administration. "The meaning of success was defined for the first time during the panicky days of October, when White House officials belatedly recognized that the federal exchange had serious software and hardware defects," The Post reported.

    And this is Pelosi:

    "Well, it's not that it's not correct, it's that if you want to keep it and ... it's important for the insurance company to say to people, this is what your plan does: It doesn't prevent you from being discriminated against on the basis of preexisting conditions, lifetime limits, annual limits," Pelosi stammered under relentless questioning by host David Gregory.

    Fournier calls Pelosi's remarks "cringe-inducing," and after reading what she said, it would be hard to disagree.


    I heard both Pelosi and Plouffe (none / 0) (#111)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    As I said, I shy away from the Fournier approach to "journalism."  If you want to review his background, of course that is up to you.  The approach that he brought to AP was known as an "edge" (imo, an opinionated approach that tended to favor the likes of Bush)... he was senior there at a time when a number of union personnel were included in AP cut-backs, as I recall.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:40:14 AM EST
    I shy away from the Pelosi and Plouffe approach to "governing" and "politics".

    Good you gave up (none / 0) (#100)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 04:12:12 PM EST
    Here is information about Fournier. link

    Nothing to support jbindc's assertion. OTOH, everything about him is quite contrary to what she said. I am assigning her mistake once again to her lack of awareness about reality.

    Do not even know when Fournier was Obama's cheerleader. And what if he ever was! Shall we start saying that everything that comes out of Dick Morris's mouth about the Clinton's are nothing but the truth because he was also a Clinton cheerleader at one time?


    You are going... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 04:49:04 PM EST
    ...with wikipedia as your source? It's great for anything that is verifiable like lists, definitions, dates, and timelines, and former spouses.

    Analysis? Not so much. Unless editing is closed, it can be edited by pretty much anybody who has a dog in a given hunt.

    I have no history with Fournier so I'm not going to opine on his wikipedia entry other than to say that this bit

    Since taking over the position, Fournier has led a dramatic shift in the AP's policy, moving it away from the neutral and objective tone it had become known for and toward a more opinionated style that would make judgments when conflicting opinions were presented in a story.
    ...seems melodramatic to me since I thought the AP was going in that direction loo-o-ng before 2008.

    Anyway. For future reference, wikipedia for data: good. wikipedia for analysis: bad.


    To what ... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:46:50 PM EST
    Nothing to support jbindc's assertion. OTOH, everything about him is quite contrary to what she said. I am assigning her mistake once again to her lack of awareness about reality.

    ... should we assign your "lack of awareness about reality"?


    Thanks; Very Interesting, hmmmm. (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    Ooh ! You got me! (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:03:01 PM EST
    But I was thinking more of things like this

    Oh, I know - the Kool Kidz blogs don't like him - - places PK gets his/her news from (and don't confuse me with facts!) (He wrote an email to Karl Rove! The horror! At least his leg didn't tingle when he talked to him).


    The funny part is the TPM's and HuffPo's of the world hate him, but so do the righty blogs, so I guess he must be doing something right. Hey - If you can't handle facts, then of course, the next best strategy is to tear down the messenger.

    Don't like Ron Fournier? Fine - let's look at other writers:

    Ron Brownstein (definitely another Obama cheerleader)

    James Fallows (From The Atlantic - a sister publication to The National Journal)

    There are so many more, but I don't have time to find them, so if you don't like my posts, please move on along.

    And I'll keep my thoughts to myself about how delusional I think YOU are for blindly supporting a politician.

    (Oops, did I say that out loud)?


    All I can say (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:14:02 PM EST
    "And I'll keep my thoughts to myself about how delusional I think YOU are for blindly supporting a politician.
    (Oops, did I say that out loud)? "

    All I can say is "Your delusion is the fact you think your problems and priorities are my problems and priorities".

    The President is delivering wonderfully on all the things I care about. How many times do I have to tell you that (and I had listed all the things I cared about before BHO was elected President)


    Ha! (4.00 / 4) (#106)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:20:32 PM EST
    The President is delivering wonderfully on all the things I care about.

    Drone strikes, screwed up health insurance, lack of transparency, fewer judicial nominations, struglling economy, free passes to Wall Street, can't get gun legislation passed, closing (not) Guantanamo, lying, lying, lying.  For starters.

    I guess you and I care about much different things.


    Uh-oh...PK's getting huffy... (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:07:59 PM EST
    and here come the 1's...for some reason, the question that keeps popping into my head is, "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

    ::rolling eyes::

    ::gotta...keep...cheering!  Go, Obama!  Go, Go Obama!  Yay!::


    I really think some of you (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:50:05 PM EST
    should go out more. There is a lot you are missing out in life because of your constant negativity. You do not even have to step out of the house to do that, just have a different mindset. Today, while watching PBS for the news, I saw how a family in Colorado was being helped by the ACA and how grateful they were for this legislation, how young people in silicon valley with a lot of imagination were inventing technologies for space exploration-lots and lots of uplifting things.....

    There are a lot of great thinks happening in America at this time under the Obama administration. The question is whether you want to see it or not or whether you want to find comfort in spewing negativity.

    It is really up to you....


    This is hilarious ... (3.00 / 2) (#117)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 07:13:39 PM EST
    I really think some of you (none / 0) (#115)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:50:05 PM MDT

    should go out more. There is a lot you are missing out in life because of your constant negativity.

    ...coming from Miss "Slam a troll rating on that comment because it pi$$ed me off or because I 'disapprove'".

    Really, thanks for the laugh. I am amused by irony and bad puns.

    And I opine that we have some "great thinks" happening in the minds of people right here.


    correction (none / 0) (#116)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:52:31 PM EST
    There are a lot of great things happening in America at this time...

    I'm so sorry (4.00 / 4) (#110)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:21:39 PM EST
    The President is delivering wonderfully on all the things I care about. How many times do I have to tell you that (and I had listed all the things I cared about before BHO was elected President)
    I honestly had no idea you had such low expectations.

    Baa waa waa (4.20 / 5) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:43:21 PM EST
    Too funny. I don't understand how anybody could say "Obama is the best president in their lifetime". I can understand liking him, his family or whatever but the most important thing a president can do is policy and it's the main thing Obama does not care about.

    Now, now (none / 0) (#114)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 06:48:05 PM EST
    Whereas I don't read R. Fournier and have not for years, the former LA Times Reporter Ron Brownstein is a decent writer, a knowledgeable centrist political writer.  I do not share your definition of cheerleader (a term, I might add, that really has not meaning other than to be deliberately disparaging ... but that is my opinion.)  Frankly, Brownstein has a history of appearing on Washington Week and other similar weekend shows ... imo, more of a centrist than a supporter of any particular candidate.

    Perhaps, this conversation started, jbindc, when you presented National Journal as "liberal."  Again, it all depends upon perspective; in my perspective, the National Journal is centrist to center-right.

    But, the upshot of all this is really along the lines of "whatever."  We all have our go-to writers and sources; that is up to each of us.  That's ok.  Neither of us need get defensive about it.


    Now, now (3.67 / 3) (#118)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 07:14:33 PM EST
    christine. No reason to be a patronizing scold.

    Of course there is (3.00 / 2) (#119)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    And, no need for you to keep playing games. Settle down.

    ugh (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    You are so... you.

    For those under the impression (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    that Ron Fournier is "one of those people"

    (Yes, I realize this might require some reading and comprehension, but I feel confident that for those of you who are averse, you can find the strength and do it).


    Why (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    is National Journal a bad source?  It doesn't exactly seem like a right wing rag or anything, any more than any of the other biased rags out there.

    Obamacare web site fiasco (none / 0) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 12:08:53 PM EST

    The Obamacare web site fiasco can be explained in large part by this:

    When HHS in 2011 invited contractors to bid on the chance to build HealthCare.gov, the department's "statement of work" did not include requirements typical of many IT contracts in which interested companies must spell out how the system would perform, according to an industry representative close to the project, who was granted anonymity in order to speak frankly. The agreement that CGI Federal, the company chosen as the main contractor, signed on Sept. 30, 2011, also did not contain specific performance criteria, success measures or response times.

    In short, it appears the contractors delivered what was ordered.  It was just that the administration bozos did not have performance requirements!!!!  This is a simply amazing level of incompetence.  But don't worry these clown's are perfectly competent to dictate what your health care plan costs and covers.


    Really ?? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    You honestly believe this:
    ...it appears the contractors delivered what was ordered.

    Yes, they asked for a non-functioning website, because that is what was delivered.  Did it ever occur to you that maybe the industry representative just might not be impartial.


    Impartial does not matter (none / 0) (#107)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:46:17 PM EST

    Either the contacts specified performance standards or they did not.  The administration has yet to identify a single vendor whose work product failed to meet contract requirements.  That the administration has failed to identify so much as a single case of nonperformance speaks volumes.



    Agreed it probably does (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:55:00 PM EST
    That the administration has failed to identify so much as a single case of nonperformance speaks volumes.
    But I don't think it says what you think it says.

    Pretty Sure... (none / 0) (#185)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    ...that functioning is something that is implied and probably not written into the 'plan'.

    I doubt they are going to throw blame to the very folks they need to fix it, not throwing blame is not proof of anything you suggest.

    I am not saying they don't have a lot of blame to to shoulder, only that you comment about them getting what they ordered is complete non-sense because no one ordered a website that was basically non-functioning.


    Do you ever notice how often ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:48:39 PM EST
    ... you use that qualifier ... "It appears..."?

    I've started to look for it because a good laugh is always guaranteed when the statement is completed.


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#197)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 11:20:20 AM EST